I am, to be really honest here, very upset by the passé attitudes [towards Jakes] of these brothers (and pastors, I might add). I’m upset for a few reasons, but If I’m being honest, the main reason why I’m so disturbed by this is because the prosperity gospel nearly killed me. Literally. I was so sick I was on the verge of death. I was lying in a hot bath with a temperature of 96 degrees, way beyond dehydrated, and literally dying with mercury poisoning. My mother was crying over my naked body, begging me to go to the hospital for treatment. “NO!” I insisted. How could I put faith in a doctor? “God is my ultimate healer! In him alone will I place my faith!”

I did eventually receive treatment, but I was still being ravished by this heresy. When I married my beautiful wife, Amber, I taught her (with the Bible of course), that there would be no taking of medicine in MY HOUSE! We would be faithful. When we were dead broke I refused to get a job because “God had promised me (through Canton Jones, no less) that I would be a buisness CEO, fortune 500, of course. How could I not have faith in that word of prophesy?

And there were a hundred other things that nearly destroyed my life and marriage. Would you care to guess who my MAIN teacher was? Who I followed as if he himself were Jesus? Who I tithed to regularly? Who’s books I read faithfully? Who’s sermons I purchased? Who’s dress I imitated?

Yes, you guessed it. TD Jakes.

My brother, this man is not merely confused, he is a wolf. God’s gracious staff saved me from him. But don’t get it twisted. Under my fur I still bear many scars that he gave to me with his powerful bite.

Anyabwile comments:

Jakes’ false teaching has long been experienced in predominantly African-American and Hispanic-American communities. His reach extends throughout the Caribbean and sub-Saharan Africa. Recent events have given T.D. Jakes greater credibility in and access to communities that to this point were largely unaware of him. In my opinion, that can’t be a good thing.

Sean’s devastating experience highlights why it is essential for senior voices in the Church to speak out clearly, boldly and decisively against teachers such as T.D. Jakes and the actions of those who facilitate them. Pastor Anyabwile has done so, as have Pastor Voddie Baucham, Dr. James White, Pastor Dan McGhee, and Pastor Chad Vegas. Others yet remain silent, make their views known only behind closed doors, or else express their criticism in such muted terms that its impact is nullified.

With this in mind, Daniel Chew’s review of Dr. Don Carson and Dr. Tim Keller’s response to The Elephant Room 2 makes somber reading.

Further reading

• Putting a Face on Destruction (Thabiti Anyabwile’s article on Sean)
• Daniel Chew’s Review of Carson’s and Keller’s Response to ER2
• Elephant Room 2: Bryan Crawford Loritts and the emergence of pachydermism
• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon

The insightful discussion centred upon the accusations of racism made by Brian Crawford Loritts and others towards those who have spoken out against T.D. Jakes and his presence at The Elephant Room. Baucham had earlier characterized Jakes as ‘an example of the worst the black church has to offer’.

During the hour-long interview, Baucham identified the position of those trying to silence ER2’s critics as Ethnic Gnosticism, accusing them of engaging in cult-like behaviour. The term Ethnic Gnosticism refers to some hidden or secret knowledge known only to a select ethnic group. Baucham explained:

Here’s one of the things that happens. And this is the great irony: it’s almost cult like. On the one hand you can say to a person, ‘You can’t say that because you don’t understand the black community and the black experience.’

Well, then somebody like myself, or Anthony Carter, or [garbled], or [garbled], or somebody like us, comes out and says, ‘Oh, actually, I agree that there are these problems with T.D. Jakes.’ Then the immediate response is ‘Well, you’re just a sell out. You’re just an Uncle Tom. You’re just trying to curry favour with white people. And the bottom line is that you’re not really black.’

And, so, that’s what the cults do. [They say:] ‘If you can’t answer my question, it’s because you’re ignorant. If you can answer my question, then I’ll find another way around.’ And that’s why I say it’s Ethnic Gnosticism.

Baucham went on to explain how cultural filters prevented some in the black community from calling out gross sin, criminal behaviour, and even heresy. Alluding to the claims of James MacDonald, who said that he did not press Jakes further because ‘the issue was not as essential, or because the relationship was not ready’, Baucham then continued:

And so, open sin being tolerated in the name of Ethnic Gnosticism, it’s got to be dragged out into the light. If people do things that are racist, they need to be called on it, because it’s sin. But if people do things that are, you know, other areas of sin, they need to be called out on that as well.

And we can’t say that because of our fear of being accused of the sin of racism, when that’s not our motivation, that we’ll refuse to call out other things. That’s just wrong. That’s just wrong.

And the idea that our relationship has to be at a certain place before you can call that out, that’s just, that’s just not Bible. And it’s not loving the brother. If you love someone, you have to confront them in their sin. You have to confront them in their error. That’s the height of love.

Both White and Baucham cited Galatians 3:28 as evidence that particular topics should not be off-limits for Christians due to fear of accusations of racism. In context, this verse teaches that the Gospel of Jesus Christ’s life, death and resurrection for sinners transcends and breaks down all ethnic and cultural barriers:

For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.

(Gal. 3:26–29)

The entire interview is required listening for anyone wishing to understand how ER2’s defenders are trying to use race to silence their critics. It can be found here:

• James interviews Voddie Baucham on the Elephant Room 2 conference and T.D. Jakes

Update

Apprising Ministries offers a transcript of another section of the interview:

• Voddie Baucham: T.D. Jakes is godfather of word faith and a poisonous influence

Further reading

• Elephant Room 2: playing the race card, again
• Voddie Baucham names the elephant in the room
• Elephant Room 2: Bryan Crawford Loritts and the emergence of pachydermism
• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Elephant Room 2 claims first Acts 29 casualty
• James White on the discernment gap

Erin Benziger of Do Not Be Surprised… gives an excellent overview:

James MacDonald interviews three African-American pastors in an attempt to ascertain their opinions on what transpired at ER2. One of these pastors was Charles Jenkins, pastor of Fellowship Missionary Baptist Church in Chicago. Jenkins is the pastor who was brought in as Voddie Baucham’s replacement at the Harvest Men’s Conference.

But perhaps the most outspoken of the three men in this video was Bryan Loritts, pastor of Fellowship Memphis Church. As you may recall, Loritts has most recently been catapulted into the spotlight for his blog post entitled, My Day With James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and the Elephant Room. In this post, Loritts called for the reformed community to “repent” of their harsh criticism and one-sided attacks on Bishop T.D. Jakes in regard to his beliefs about the Godhead’. In response to this call to repentance, Daniel Neades of Better Than Sacrifice wrote,

Loritts has apparently failed to understand that it is because we love people – including T.D. Jakes himself – that we want to be sure that they are neither inadvertently trusting in a non-Trinitarian god of their own imagination, nor being deceived by a false prosperity gospel, such as the one Jakes preaches. Loritts uncharitably judges the inward thoughts and intents of his opponents. (Online Source)

Precisely. I couldn’t have stated it more accurately myself. Also in his blog post, however, Loritts played the ever-popular, and ever-inappropriate, “race card.” It seemed that this issue had been adequately dealt with throughout the weekend, however, and many of us hoped that it would be laid to rest. Unfortunately, in the video posted on James MacDonald’s blog, the “race card” was played again, and in a most fast and furious…and illegitimate, manner. About four minutes into the original video as it appears on MacDonald’s blog, one will hear the following dialogue between Loritts and MacDonald:

Bryan Loritts: “Some of the strongest reactions were African Americans in the blogosphere….um, I’ll just go ahead and say it, who strike me as wanting so bad to be in the white theological world. And to take a little bit of a tangent here, and I’ll get back, the loudest voices in the conservative evangelical world, in my estimation right now, are your older, white reformed voices. And so that implicitly sends the message that mature Christianity in the conservative evangelical world is ‘older white.’ And you’ve got some African Americans who so idolize that – what some people would call white idolization – that they then feel as if they’ve got to be the voice for black culture to speak against people like T.D. Jakes. So what happens is, you kind of prop them up. When the truth of the matter is, the term ‘black’ is very complex…….We’re different, we’re different. So my concern is, African Americans, a small minority speaking against Jakes, and then leveraging that in the white theological world for some of these older white theologians….”

James MacDonald: “What would they be leveraging it for?”

Bryan Loritts: “To fit into their circles….”

James MacDonald: “Opportunity…?”

Bryan Loritts: “We want to be in their circles. And so we’ll allow ourselves to used as a puppet. That is my perception of some of this backlash.”

As Ken Silva noted earlier today, it indeed seems that James MacDonald is attempting to “sneak modalism in the back door” as “we’re essentially told that if we reject T.D. Jakes as a Christian brother, it’s because we’re racist” (Online Source). Yes, it certainly does seem that way, doesn’t it?

Erin goes on to cover Voddie Baucham’s dignified response to the video. She then reminds us:

Friends, this is not about race. At all. To manipulate this situation into one that is rooted in race is absolutely absurd. It seems to reveal an immature reaction to criticism of any kind and, more importantly, it demonstrates a lack of biblical conviction. This is about biblical truth. The concerns that have been raised regarding the theology of T.D. Jakes are based solely upon the fruit of his very public ministry, one that has taught not only the heresy of modalism, but also that of the Word-Faith prosperity gospel…a false gospel.

So while everyone else is getting fired up over the dangerous dealing of the “race card,” I would ask the reader to remember what is really at stake here: the Word of our God.

Phil Johnson, of the PyroManiacs blog and executive Director of John MacArthur’s Grace to You, provides his similarly forthright assessment:

…this is probably the most blatantly racist presentation I have ever witnessed from an ostensibly “mainstream” evangelical source.

The take-away message is this: If you’re an old white guy with any hint of Reformed theology in your confessional statement and you don’t think T. D. Jakes’s equivocations at Elephant Room 2 were sufficient to erase decades of concern about his Oneness leanings and his relentless proclamation of a false Prosperity Gospel—then you must be a racist. And even if you don’t think you’re a racist, you should shut up anyway. Because in the black community relationships are more important than any doctrine, including the gospel and the Trinity. We all should strive to subjugate doctrine to relationships anyway.

If on the other hand you are a young black man with Reformed convictions—or any black person who just has a keen interest in doctrinal and biblical accuracy—you are a sellout and a reproach to your own community. The only possible explanation is that you are guilty of “White Idolatry.” You secretly wish to earn favor with Whitey. You should not only shut up, you should be ashamed. As far as the importance of relationships is concerned, we don’t really care to have one with you.

End of discussion.

So much for open dialogue and not hiding behind walls of disagreement. The Elephant Room experiment clearly wasn’t really about that in the first place. It wasn’t about real unity or truth, either.

How does 2000 years of Christian consensus on the doctrine of the Godhead get sent to the back of the bus so blithely in the name of unity and racial reconciliation?

Johnson is describing here what I earlier termed pachydermism:

‘The Elephant Room débutantes’ ball has seen the public emergence of pachydermism, the belief that clearly defined and defended sound doctrine is harmful to Christian unity. This lethal disease contrasts sharply with the Biblical doctrine that true unity of faith arises from a shared understanding of the objective truth taught by Scripture (cf. Ephesians 4). Pachydermism is regrettably characterized by its inability to distinguish between improper attacks upon a person, and the legitimate comparison with Scripture of what a person believes, teaches and confesses.’ — The emergence of pachydermism

Johnson concludes with these questions:

And why the deafening silence from so many men and ministries who supposedly are committed to standing for the defense and proclamation of core gospel truths? If you can be intimidated into silence by the race card when a greed-mongering prosperity-gospel Sabellian-sympathizer is being hailed by once-sound evangelicals as someone to be emulated, what doctrine will you defend openly and publicly?

Exactly.

Benziger’s full article is available here:

• The Elephant Room Continues to Stomp On Its Critics

Johnson’s is here:

• James MacDonald Plays the Race Card

Update

Voddie Baucham has spoken further on Facebook about the video and the ensuing reaction to it, expressing his sadness about the division that ER2 has caused:

I see that the racial turn the ER2 discussion has taken has really struck a nerve. Providentially, as our church journeys through the book of Romans, I just addressed the issue of unity/diversity in the Body of Christ a couple of weeks ago. Rather than write anything about the recent video, I’ll leave you with this.

Less than 20% of the people in our church are “non-white.” That’s right, my family and I are in the extreme minority in our congregation. I decided over a decade ago to pursue a ministry that crossed cultural and ethnic divides. This does not make me better than black pastors with predominantly black churches (or any other ethnicity, etc.). However, it is an important piece of the puzzle in this discussion. You need to know that I am not addressing this issue (and did not listen to the video discussion posted yesterday) as one who is without knowledge of the differences between people groups/cultures.

I’ve been labeled “Uncle Tom,” and “Sellout.” I’ve been accused of abandoning the black community, hating my heritage, and trying to curry favor with whites. I’ve also experienced prejudice (both my own and that of others). However, preaching this passage was almost cathartic! I have grown to love THE CHURCH! Not the “black church” or the “white church,” but THE CHURCH! That’s what breaks my heart in all of this. At any rate, enjoy!

Baucham’s sermon is available here:

• An Extraordinary Affection for an Extraordinary Church

Further reading

• Voddie Baucham names the elephant in the room
• Elephant Room 2: Bryan Crawford Loritts and the emergence of pachydermism
• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Elephant Room 2 claims first Acts 29 casualty
• James White on the discernment gap

If we are to understand one another and avoid talking at cross purposes, it is necessary to define our terminology. Unless we do this, we risk erroneously assuming that we have understood what someone else means when they use a particular term.

I shall therefore provide several definitions that I believe are in line with generally accepted usage. In any case, you will at least know with precision what I intend when I use a word:

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’

‘The question is, said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’

(Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll)

Orthodoxy

The Oxford English Dictionary defines orthodox as meaning ‘right in opinion’. A person thus adheres to orthodoxy if he maintains right opinion. The word derives from two Greek words: orthos, meaning ‘straight or right’, and doxa, meaning opinion or glory. (The English word ‘doxology’ also derives from the latter; it means ‘the speaking of praise or glory’.)

In his book, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, Harold O.J. Brown (Ph.D. Harvard University, and professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical International University) writes (p. 1):

“Orthodoxy” is derived from two Greek words meaning “right” and “honor.” Orthodox faith and orthodox doctrines are those that honor God rightly, something that ought to be desirable and good.

I like Brown’s statement because he gets to the heart of the rightness of orthodoxy: something is right (and therefore orthodox) if it honours God and brings Him glory (or ‘honour’, as Brown puts it).

As our almighty, everlasting and holy God is perfect in all His attributes and ways, any statement made of Him is honouring only if it portrays Him and His work accurately. To portray God other than as He is is de facto to dishonour Him by detracting from His perfection. Since the Scriptures are the sole source we have of authoritative self-revelation from God – that is, they are the only place where we can presently discover with certainty what He is really like – it follows that we honour God by our belief, teaching and confession only if they accord with the Scriptures.

My definition of Christian orthodoxy, then, is this: belief, teaching and confession that is in full accordance with the Scriptures.

In an earlier post, I asked the question, What is the activity we call discernment really all about? I argued there that Christian discernment is built upon the foundation of paying close attention to the Great Salvation that is only to be found in Christ. I said this:

Discernment thus begins and ends with Christ. It is always about Christ, His person, His work.

Discernment abides in Christ. It feasts richly on His Word, for in the Scriptures alone do we find authoritative revelation of the person and work of Christ. All the Scriptures speak of Him, and in them we encounter God in human flesh, crucified for our sin and raised for our being declared righteous.

It therefore follows that orthodoxy is especially concerned with right belief, teaching and confession concerning the person and work of Christ.

Heresy

Brown (ibid., p. 3) has this to say about heresy:

The word “heresy,” as we have noted, is the English version of the Greek noun hairesis, originally meaning nothing more insidious than “party.” It is used in this neutral sense in Acts 5:17, 15:5, and 26:5. Early in the history of the first Christians, however, “heresy” came to be used to mean a separation or split resulting from a false faith (1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20). It designated either a doctrine or the party holding the doctrine, a doctrine that was sufficiently intolerable to destroy the unity of the Christian church. In the early church, heresy did not refer to simply any doctrinal disagreement, but to something that seemed to undercut the very basis for Christian existence. Practically speaking, heresy involved the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Christ—later called “special theology” and “Christology”.

Corruptio optimi pessimum est, says the proverb: “the corruption of the best is the worst.” The early Christians felt a measure of tolerance for the pagans, even though they were persecuted by them, for the pagans were ignorant. “This ignorance,” Paul told the Athenians, “God winked at” (Acts 17:30). But Paul did not wink at him who brought “any other Gospel” within the context of the Christian community. “Let him be accursed,” he told the Galatian church (Gal. 1:8).

My definition of heresy is therefore this: belief, teaching or confession contrary to the Scriptures that is sufficiently intolerable as to destroy the unity of the church.

Heresy presupposes orthodoxy. It sets itself up in opposition to the teaching of Scripture and thereby traduces God by painting a false picture of Him and His work. Heresy is divisive, because it comes from within the church and God’s people properly react to it in horror, not wishing to see God’s name defamed, and unwilling that anyone should perish through a corruption of the Gospel.

Not withstanding the hazard that heresy poses to the cause of the Gospel, the disunity that it brings is in damnable opposition to the repeated commendation of Christian unity and exhortation towards it found throughout the Scripture (e.g. Ps. 133:1; John 17:21; Acts 1:14; 2:1, 46; 5:12; Rom.15:5; 1 Cor. 11:17–33; Eph. 4:3, 13; Phil. 2:2–4).

Note well that it is the one bringing heresy who is responsible for the division that it causes, not those who oppose him by holding fast to sound doctrine. Thus, Paul instructs Titus that he is to:

‘Reject a divisive [hairetikon (αἱρετικὸν)] man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.’ (Titus 3:10–11)

Paul had previously told Titus that it is a positive responsibility of every elder (pastor) to be ‘holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict’ (Titus 1:9).

Indeed, Paul shows that standing firm in the traditions received from the Apostles is the natural implication for all believers of our having been chosen and called by God for salvation and sanctification:

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2 Thess. 2:13–15)

Notice how Paul connects the proper giving of thanks to God (that is, expressing the glory and honour due to Him) with our election, calling, salvation and sanctification. Observe that these things are all ‘for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ’. ‘Therefore,’ Paul says, ‘stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle’. The whole process of salvation, being worked in us for the glory of Christ, has as its inevitable implication our standing fast in the teaching that we have received from the Apostles.

All believers are thus commanded to cling to orthodoxy, and elders are especially called to ‘exhort and convict those who contradict’. The proper response to heresy is therefore to identify it and warn the person advocating it. If the person persists in his divisiveness after two admonitions, he is to be rejected – he condemns himself by refusing to submit to the truth revealed in Scripture and by spurning its call to stand fast in the faith.

Aberrancy

If orthodoxy is that which is in full accord with Scriptures, and heresy is that which is contrary to it in an intolerable way, it is clear that there is a category between the two: doctrine that is not properly orthodox, but which is not sufficiently egregious so as to undermine the Faith fatally and be a cause for division. This lesser category of error is called ‘aberrant’, meaning simply that it is ‘straying from the accepted standard’.

Some use the term heterodox (‘other opinion’, not conforming to that which is orthodox) in a similar way, but that term seems to me be to be wider, potentially encompassing even heresy in a way that aberrancy does not.

Thus, aberrant belief, teaching or confession is that which is not in full accord with the Scriptures, but which does not pose an immediate threat to the unity of the church.

That which is aberrant must, of course, be corrected, not least because we are commanded ‘to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). But also because such errors tend to multiply, and aberrant doctrine can very quickly descend into full-blown heresy. Nevertheless, aberrancy is not in and of itself so serious as to call for separation between those who are in error and those who are holding fast to the full counsel of the Scriptures.

Conclusion

Therefore, brethren, having boldness to enter the Holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which He consecrated for us, through the veil, that is, His flesh, and having a High Priest over the house of God, let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.

(Heb. 10:19–23)

Further reading

• Thinking about orthodoxy: defining terms and asking questions
• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• James White on the Discernment Gap

Reading the commentary on the Elephant Room 2 events, and in particular, the alleged rehabilitation (repentance?) of TD Jakes has truly been brought me sadness. Sure, I know that very few Evangelicals, even scholars, have much experience with modalists and Oneness advocates, but still, the general ease with which many have been taken in by such a shallow and brief discussion does not speak well of the depth of understanding of many today. It also speaks loudly to the fact that many in Evangelicalism disconnect the honor and glory of God from the truth He has revealed about Himself. That is, they do not see that to worship and honor God demands from us our utmost effort to accurately hear and to follow what He has revealed about Himself, primarily in Jesus Christ, and the holy Scriptures. To take lightly God’s self-revelation is an affront to the divine majesty, and would not be the action of a heart that is consumed with passion for its Lord.

White continues, turning his attention to what Jakes said at the Elephant Room:

Let’s remember some of Jakes’ words from ER2. Keeping in mind his statement of faith, which continues to use the modalistic language of “manifestations,” and keeping in mind that Jakes does not baptize in the Trinitarian formula (he baptizes in Jesus name only—something oddly ignored by the tribunal who seemed to grant to themselves the ability to proclaim Trinitarian orthodoxy at ER2), let’s consider his words. When asked if God manifests Himself in three ways, or exists in three divine Persons, he said that “neither one of them totally get it for me.” Now there is a ringing profession of Trinitarianism if I ever heard it. Please, why are so many quick to pass over this direct statement that the historic profession of faith just doesn’t quite “totally get it” for Bishop Jakes? Does that really sound like someone who has seen the error of their ways and is ready to abjure error for a sound profession of faith in the truth? Or does it sound like someone who really thinks he is in a position to pick and choose what is comfortable for him given his goals and aims?

Ah, but Jakes went on to say, “I’m not crazy about the word ‘person.’” Yes, another ringing word of repentance form his former modalism and a sound profession of his new Trinitarian faith, is it not? Is that why he has not changed his statement of faith for his church, because this new found Trinitarianism is not something he is really all that “crazy about”? Can you imagine talking to someone who had been a Mormon, and professed belief in many gods, and now he is seeking fellowship with you, and when you inquire as to his beliefs, he says, “Oh, I believe mainly like you, but, Trinitarianism just doesn’t fully do it for me, and I’m not really crazy about the term ‘monotheism.’” Will you be inviting that person to fill your pulpit to teach on the nature of God next Sunday, I wonder?

Strident words? White is merely warming up. Read his full piece, here:

• The Discernment Gap: Showing a Lack of Passion for God’s Honor and Glory

Further reading

• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: The emergence of pachydermism
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Voddie Baucham names the elephant in the room
• Elephant Room 2 claims first Acts 29 casualty

I knew Mark was the primary voice for Acts 29 and that I was not comfortable with how some of his comments represented the network. I also knew Mark and many of the other brothers are faithful ministers of the gospel, disagreements aside.

I remember listening in anticipation as Mark rattled off a series of affirmations. I was waiting for that moment right after the affirmations in which he would ask, “So, do you denounce modalism and prosperity teaching? Are you prepared to change your church’s doctrinal statement, disassociate from modalist organizations, and denounce any and all modalist and prosperity teaching you have participated in?” That moment never came. Instead, Mark smiled, shook Jakes’ hand, and said, “awesome.” I was stunned. I know Mark is smart enough to know that heretics will often affirm what you affirm and the real test is in whether they will deny what you deny. I wondered why Mark didn’t go there.

I looked at my assistant pastor at this moment and we both knew that our run in Acts 29 had come to an end. We were no longer talking about secondary issues. We had now crossed into seeing the leader of our network embrace a man who is heretical with regard to the nature of God and the gospel. We were now watching Mark treat a full blown heretic as pastor for other young pastors to learn from. I listened to the buzz in the room, and on twitter, as several young reformed guys rejoiced at finding in TD Jakes a humble pastor to whom they could look. I was deeply saddened. I pulled out of Acts 29 that night.

I want to be very clear. I don’t think Mark Driscoll is a heretic. I don’t think Mark has bad intentions. I think Mark is a faithful, orthodox pastor who is well-intentioned. I know many pastors in Acts 29 who are taking a different approach to this issue than I am. I believe they are faithful, well-intentioned brothers. I didn’t leave Acts 29 because I question the integrity of any of these men.

I do think Mark Driscoll is wrong on this issue. I think his failure to defend the gospel and the nature of God in the Elephant Room, as awkward and unfortunate a setting as it was, was a major failure in his duty as a spokesman for Jesus, the church, and Acts 29. I can not follow a leader who will not act on Titus 1:9 when so many young pastors are looking on. It is for this reason I left Acts 29. I pray Mark will see the grievous error that took place that day. I will still love him, pray for him, and admire him in many ways if he doesn’t.

Vegas’ move echoes that of Dan McGhee, pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel Detroit West, who earlier in January led his church to dissociate from James MacDonald’s Harvest Bible Fellowship over concerns that MacDonald ‘seems insistent in pushing boundaries in the area of associations with men whose ministry philosophy, practice, and even theology we can’t endorse’.

Read Vegas’ full post, here [update: the post is no longer available, see below]:

• Mark Driscoll, The Elephant Room, and Why I Left Acts 29…

Update

Vegas has withdrawn his post from his blog. He explains:

Where did my controversial post go?

After posting on my blog, something I rarely do but hope to begin again, I was slammed with comments, calls, emails, twitter messages etc. I decided to pull the post and restart my lame blogging career with less controversial posts. So, sorry if you missed it folks.

Further reading

• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: The emergence of pachydermism
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Voddie Baucham names the elephant in the room

Buacham offers a thoughtful and intelligent analysis of the problem with T.D. Jakes’ invitation to the Elephant Room, showing how it was a ‘lose-lose for evangelicalism’:

Bishop Jakes is an example of the worst the black church has to offer.

One of the goals of ER2 was to address the issue of “racial” unity. Thus, Bishop Jakes was there (at least in part) as a representative of the “black church.” In light of the aforementioned issues, I was disinclined to participate in such an event. You see, Jakes was an invited guest; an invited ‘black’ guest. If he were mistreated, he had the race card; if he was accepted, he had entree into a new audience. It was a win-win for Jakes, and a lose-lose for evangelicalism. Obviously, he was not going to spout unadulterated modalism. Nor was he going to repudiate his roots (remember, this is his “heritage,” both ethnically and theologically). He had a perfect opportunity to find a middle ground and show “humility” in an environment that would be portrayed as “hostile” even though hostility was forbidden in light of the unwritten rules surrounding his blackness. Thus, his opponents had to choose between outright defeat and pyrrhic victory.

Baucham enumerates the problems with Jakes, and confronts the disgraceful insinuations of racism that have been in play. Finally, Baucham names the real elephant in the room:

I’m not angry with James MacDonald. He’s my brother, and I love him. We disagree. We both understand that. Ironically, that’s what The Elephant Room is supposedly all about. Brothers should be able to disagree with one another and still be brothers. There’s just one problem: Embracing Jakes while rejecting others because we question his history of modalism and Word of Faith teaching…that’s the real “Elephant in the Room”?

Baucham’s piece is well worth reading in full:

• The Elephant in the Room by Voddie Baucham

My thanks to Paula Coyle of purposedrivel.com for alerting me to Baucham’s article.

Further reading

• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Elephant Room 2: The emergence of pachydermism

Until struck by a crisis of conscience in the late 1960s, Marjoe continued to deceive many in the church and relieve them of their money. He then allowed a documentary film crew unlimited access to his final revival tour, giving them backstage interviews where he explained how he and others deceived the flock. The video below is the resulting must-see documentary, with a startling relevance for today’s church. The film won the 1972 Academy Award for best documentary.

Of course, Christians today would never be so gullible. Would they?

Caution: this documentary contains one brief instance of crude language.

For those without the ability to play Flash content, this documentary is also available on YouTube.

My thanks to Apprising Ministries for bringing this to my attention.

Further reading:

• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Elephant Room 2: The emergence of pachydermism

The Post reports:

To the adjunct professor at Crichton College, those “gospel centered” people elevated love for doctrine over love for people. His words for them were this: “Your conduct is out of step with the gospel,” referring to Apostle Paul’s words to Peter in Galatians 2 when he avoided the Gentiles only when he was around the Jews.

Loritts has apparently failed to understand that it is because we love people – including T.D. Jakes himself – that we want to be sure that they are neither inadvertently trusting in a non-Trinitarian god of their own imagination, nor being deceived by a false prosperity gospel, such as the one Jakes preaches. Loritts uncharitably judges the inward thoughts and intents of his opponents.

Revealingly, in his application of Galatians 2, Loritts has cast himself as the Apostle Paul. Some might think that his seeming lack of concern for the integrity of the Gospel better suits him to the role of Peter.

Loritts also advised the “middle aged white Reformed guys” to be extremely careful of the messages they sent, both implicit and explicit.

The age and skin colour of those questioning Jakes’ beliefs and teaching is irrelevant. In fact, those men and women expressing concern represent a broad spectrum of the Church, including Baptists and Confessional Lutherans, as well as the Reformed. Loritts here is merely engaging in an ad hominem attack, mischaracterizing the Elephant Room’s many opponents as originating from a narrow clique. He also sows the utterly unfounded idea that latent racism may be motivating those with whom he disagrees. This disgraceful tactic merely highlights the intellectual and doctrinal poverty of his own diaphanous arguments.

The Post continues:

Though he was not accusing anyone of racism, he found that the “Reformed crowd’s” actions (refusing to come to the Elephant Room event or having an honest dialogue) sent an implicit message to the public – “theological bigotry.”

If Loritts is not accusing anyone of racism, why does he even mention it? Again, he is transparently engaged in the desperate antics of those feeling the quicksand of their own position rapidly dissolve beneath their own feet.

Loritts also seems to have conveniently forgotten that independent apologists endeavoured to attend the Elephant Room but, despite having reserved tickets in advance, were refused entry and, in one case, even threatened with arrest. It is the organizers of the Elephant Room who have proven themselves unwilling to engage in honest dialogue. And, by his baseless personal attacks, Loritts himself demonstrates the very fault that he ascribes to those with whom he disagrees.

Loritts is apparently unmoved by the informed and reasoned assessment of scholars such as Dr. James White, who declared on Twitter:

McDonald [sic], Driscoll, etc., showed such disrespect to the Trinity and Church History that they did not even ask the most basic questions.

White later devoted an hour of his popular Dividing Line webcast to scrutinizing Jakes’ statements at the Elephant Room.

Dr. Carl Trueman, Departmental Chair of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, likewise gave his assessment of what White called the ‘MacDonald/Driscoll disaster’:

This request that we ask hard questions in the right venue, and consider the ER to have signally failed in this regard, will no doubt evince cries of ‘Hey, hater!’ from some quarters. That is apparently the standard reaction now when anyone questions the actions of a successful pastor of a large church. If, however, we take true doctrine seriously, then surely we will see false teaching for what it is: soul destroying. Reflect on a parallel situation for a moment: let us say that, week after week, I see a congregant’s wife with a black eye and an arm covered in cuts and bruises; eventually I ask her husband, ‘Did you do that?’ to which he says ‘No, I abhor violence and despise the sort of people who beat their wives’; in such circumstances, is it unloving, Pharisaical or hateful of me to press the question a little further? I think not. Indeed, failure so to do would be moral delinquency of the highest order. To press the matter is actually responsible pastoring. The same thing applies with those whose public teaching seems to be deviant. It is not hateful to press the hard questions, and to do so with appropriate competence and in a suitable context; rather, it is right and necessary.

(Source)

In a pithy blog post, Tom Chantry, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church, and Elephant Room attendee, gave his assessment of Jakes’ performance:

Jakes masterfully deconstructs the entire practice of theology. Don’t be fooled by the panel members who insist that he affirmed the Trinity. What he did was say, “I’m Trinitarian so long as I am free to express it in Sabelian terms.” He repeatedly insisted that Oneness folks and Trinitarian folks are all saying the same thing. He dismissed the question as secondary – not worth division among the people of Christ, among whom he clearly counts the Oneness churches. Once he has deconstructed the very idea of systematic theology, he can affirm anything. So yes, he answered “absolutely” or “yeș” to each and every one of Driscoll’s questions, but what does that mean? Not much.

The Elephant Room débutantes’ ball has seen the public emergence of pachydermism, the belief that clearly defined and defended sound doctrine is harmful to Christian unity. This lethal disease contrasts sharply with the Biblical doctrine that true unity of faith arises from a shared understanding of the objective truth taught by Scripture (cf. Ephesians 4).

In fact, there have been very few, if any, attacks upon T.D. Jakes himself – I am aware of none. Rather, it is his belief and teaching that have been subject to intense scrutiny. Pachydermism is regrettably characterized by its inability to distinguish between improper attacks upon a person, and the legitimate comparison with Scripture of what a person believes, teaches and confesses.

In a Facebook discussion of the Christian Post article, Pastor Gervase Charmley, minister at Bethel Evangelical Free Church, Stoke on Trent, UK, and perhaps best known for his ‘good sermons’ featured on the Fighting for the Faith Internet radio programme, gave this assessment:

I would say “Woe unto them who say ‘peace, peace’ where there is no peace.” Because that’s what MacDonald and co. are doing, saying that there is peace where there isn’t any.

Yes, the criticism of Jakes has been substantive and doctrinal, not ad hominem. What has been criticised is what the chap has said and not said, not the colour of his shirt, or even the style of his preaching. It is disgraceful to characterise it as personal attack, though not in the least surprising.

One of the effects of Postmodernism is the loss of the ability to actually engage in meaningful conversation; by saying that all positions are equally true we are left with only one avenue of criticism – the personal attack. And that is where you are left by the compromise of the Elephant Room. You can only accuse of ad hominem, while using ad hominem yourself (the implied accusation of racism, for example).

If anyone asked me what I believe about the Trinity, I would be able to point to multiple sermons addressing the question, and historic credal statements that express my beliefs. When someone can’t, we have a problem. No one in public ministry should leave any doubts about their views on the Trinity. Who God is happens to be extremely important.

Loritts’ call for repentance amounts to asking Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, Confessional Anglicans, and other Christians, to repent for caring about the doctrine of the Trinity and for objecting to Jakes’ false prosperity gospel. Loritts is asking sincere Christians to repent for loving sufficiently so as to be willing to speak the truth, even when it is unwelcome and contrary to the prevailing spirit of the age.

The critics of the Elephant Room have presented substantive, carefully argued and Biblical critiques of what occurred, rooted in the creeds and confessions of the historic orthodox Christian Faith. The defenders of Elephant Room, like Loritts, are able to respond with nothing other than tawdry personal attacks and unfounded slurs and insinuations. It is Loritts who should repent of his reprehensible accusations, and he who, along with James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll, ought to repent for participating in the Great Doctrinal Downgrade of which pachydermism is the herald.

May the Lord open their eyes and grant them repentance and the forgiveness of sins in His Son, who died that even these sins might be forgiven. May He grant us all the grace to speak the truth in love to one another, that we may ‘grow up in all things into Him who is the head – Christ – from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.’ (Eph. 4:15–16)

Readers may also be interested in my earlier coverage of T.D. Jakes and The Elephant Room 2:

• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room

Postscript

The term pachydermism was inspired by the title of my friend Erin Benziger’s post, This ‘n’ That – Pachyderm Edition.

Update

The Christian Post article was apparently based upon this blog post by Loritts.

As covered by Apprising Ministries, White revealed his initial thoughts in a series of acerbic tweets:

He finished with a direct challenge to Jakes:

Should Jakes respond, I shall be sure to cover the news here.

In a later episode of his Dividing Line webcast, White analysed in detail the statements that Jakes made at the Elephant Room 2 concerning the Trinity. I highly recommend this episode to all those who desire to be informed on this crucial issue:

• A Mega-Friday Dividing Line on TD Jakes and Elephants in the Room

Readers may also be interested in my earlier coverage of T.D. Jakes and The Elephant Room 2:

• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?

Why, then, was MacDonald’s invitation to T.D. Jakes controversial? For two primary reasons:

1. Since he began his ministry, Jakes has been associated with the heresy of modalism, and has hitherto refused to embrace orthodox Trinitarian creeds or formulas.
2. Jakes has consistently preached a false prosperity gospel, promising people that God will bless them materially if they give generously to Jakes’ ministry.

The Heresy of modalism vs. the orthodox view of the Trinity

Before we can examine Jakes’ statements at the Elephant Room, it is necessary to understand both the heresy of modalism and the Church’s historic orthodox confession of the Trinity.

In his excellent book, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, Harold O.J. Brown (Ph.D. Harvard University, and professor of biblical and systematic theology at Trinity Evangelical International University) writes this about modalism (p. 99):

The word “modalism” is unfamiliar to most Christians, yet it is the most common theological error among people who think themselves orthodox. It is the simplest way to explain the Trinity while preserving the oneness of God; unfortunately, it is incorrect. Adoptionism [the heresy that Jesus became God at his baptism] preserved the unity of the godhead by sacrificing the deity of Christ; modalism, by abandoning the personhood of Christ and the Holy Spirit. Modalism frequently reappears as the result of failure to teach the doctrine of the Trinity clearly. An implicit or naive modalism is sometimes found in modern fundamentalistic circles that insist on the deity of Christ but are unwilling to make the theological effort to formulate a clear doctrine of the Trinity.

Modalism upholds the deity of Christ, but does not see him as a distinct Person vis-à-vis the Father. It holds that God reveals himself under different aspects or modes [hence, modalism] in different ages—as the Father in Creation and in the giving of the Law, as the Son in Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension. Modalism stresses the full deity of Christ and thus does justice to the tremendous impact he made upon his age, and it avoids the suggestion that he is a second God alongside the Father. Unfortunately it abandons the diversity of Persons within the godhead, and thus loses the important concept that Christ is our representative or advocate with the Father.

Notice that the error of modalism is not that it denies God’s working distinctively as Father, Son and Holy Spirit – modalism expressly affirms this – but rather, that it denies the existence of three distinct Persons within the Godhead.

In theological language, modalism affirms an economic trinity (three distinctive ways of God’s working), but denies an ontological Trinity (three distinct Persons subsisting in one Godhead). Thus, modalists are able to affirm their belief in a trinity, but what they are confessing by that term is something other than the essential doctrine of the Trinity taught by the historic orthodox Christian Faith and believed by the Christian Church throughout the ages.

With Brown’s explanation of modalism in mind, read the statement of belief concerning God from the website of Jakes’ own congregation, The Potter’s House:

There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It is immediately clear that this is the language of classic modalism, not that of Trinitarian orthodoxy.

We need also to understand why modalism is a deadly error condemned by the Church.

Here is Brown, again (Heresies, p. 99):

Logically, modalism makes the events of redemptive history a kind of charade. Not being a distinct person, the Son cannot really represent us to the Father. Modalism must necessarily be docetic [believing that Jesus’ physical body was an illusion] and teach that Christ was human in appearance only; the alternative, on the basis of modalistic presuppositions, is that God himself died on the Cross. Since such an idea is considered absurd—except by death-of-God theologians—the normal consequence is the conclusion that while Christ was fully God, he only appeared to be man.

Brown continues his discussion, explaining why some find modalism attractive (Heresies, p. 100):

Like adoptionism, modalism has a basis in Scripture. The adoptionists emphasize the Synoptic Gospels [Matthew, Mark and Luke] and their portrayal of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus at his baptism. The modalists emphasize the Gospel of John with its statements stressing the oneness of Christ with the Father, for example, “I and my Father are one,” and, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 10:30, 14:9). Instead of understanding these verses to mean that Christ is a second Person in perfect communion with the Father, they are taken to mean that he and the Father are a single Person, in other words, that he is the Father.

The word “one” in the Greek text of John 10:30 is the neuter hen, which suggests that the meaning is “one deity, one divine essence,” rather than one Person, but this is a rather sophisticated insight. It makes sense only if one can conceive of God as subsisting in distinct Persons, namely, in the Father and the Son (and of course in the Holy Spirit as well). Anyone who has not yet been able to formulate the concept of the Trinity in this explicit way will of course find it simpler and more plausible to understand Christ as saying, “I and the Father are one Person,” in other words, as presenting himself as a mode of the Father.

If the Son is not a real Person who can stand before the Father and address him, then the later Christian concept of substitutionary satisfaction, which holds that Christ takes our place and pays our debt to the Father, becomes at best a symbol, not a reality. Where modalism prevails, the concept of substitutionary satisfaction, or vicarious atonement, will necessarily be absent, and so modalism is sometimes adopted by those who object to the doctrine of vicarious atonement. More commonly, however, it simply arises as an attempt to reduce the mystery of the Trinity to a more understandable concept, even at the cost of the true humanity of Jesus and the doctrine of substitutionary satisfaction.

Modalism is considered heresy because it necessarily means that either Christ did not really become incarnate, or else that the Son is not a distinct Person from the Father who can take our place and pay a ransom to Him (Matt. 20:28). Either the Word did not really become flesh, and thus Jesus did not die with a real physical body or shed His real blood, or else Christ cannot make satisfaction for us to the Father and be our Advocate with Him. In other words, one way or another, modalism necessarily invalidates the central doctrine of the entire Christian faith: that Jesus died bodily for our sins, rose from the dead, and is even now our Advocate with the Father (1 John 2:1), making intercession for us with Him (Rom. 8:34).

Modalism thus destroys the basis of the Christian Faith.

One can, of course, mistakenly hold modalistic beliefs out of ignorance. But one cannot understand and confess modalism while simultaneously holding on to the historic orthodox Christian faith. The two are simply incompatible.

By the early fourth century, the Arian heresy was raging. Arianism taught that, although divine, Jesus was nevertheless a created being. (Jehovah’s Witnesses are modern day Arians.) The Church responded to the Arian heresy with the Nicene Creed, adopted in its original form by the First Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and subsequently revised:

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man, and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.

And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son; who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.I acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen.

(Note that the English word ‘catholic’ is derived from the Greek word meaning ‘universal’. When the Nicene Creed uses the word ‘catholic’, it is simply referring to the fact that the true Christian Church is universal, or worldwide.)

The Nicene Creed enabled the Church to distinguish between those teaching and believing the Arian heresy, and those who were believing, teaching and confessing the historic orthodox Christian Faith delivered by the Apostles and recorded in the Scriptures.

Further heresies arose, including modalism. The Church therefore developed language and confessions to refute those heresies. By the early sixth century, the Church was using the Athanasian Creed. The text of this creed is carefully designed to exclude a number of Trinitarian and Christological heresies. It adopts the earlier language of Augustine’s On the Trinity (415 AD), and the confession concerning the Trinity arising from the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). The Athanasian Creed therefore reflects the historic orthodox Christian Faith as received from the Apostles, recorded in Scripture, and understood by the worldwide Christian Church.

Here is the text of the Athanasian Creed:

Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [universal] faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.

And the catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; Neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Substance. For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is all one: the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Ghost incomprehensible. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three Eternals, but one Eternal. As there are not three Uncreated nor three Incomprehensibles, but one Uncreated and one Incomprehensible. So likewise the Father is almighty, the Son almighty, and the Holy Ghost almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties, but one Almighty. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord, and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity to acknowledge every Person by Himself to be God and Lord, So are we forbidden by the catholic religion to say, There be three Gods, or three Lords.

The Father is made of none: neither created nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created, but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son: neither made, nor created, nor begotten, but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before or after other; none is greater or less than another; But the whole three Persons are coeternal together, and coequal: so that in all things, as is aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshiped. He, therefore, that will be saved must thus think of the Trinity.

Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe faithfully the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right faith is, that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and Man of the substance of His mother, born in the world; Perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood; Who, although He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but one Christ: One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking the manhood into God; One altogether; not by confusion of Substance, but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell, rose again the third day from the dead; He ascended into heaven; He sitteth on the right hand of the Father, God Almighty; from whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies, and shall give an account of their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire.

This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.

We have thus seen that modalism is a dangerous heresy, and was condemned as such by the early Church. Modalism is fundamentally antithetical to the Christian Faith and incompatible with any proper understanding of Christ’s bodily death in our place for our sins.

We have also seen the specific language that the early Church carefully crafted to confess Christian truth, and thereby to distinguish heretics from those who believed, taught and confessed ‘the Faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3).

More recent confessions continue to reflect the understanding of the Trinity expressed by Augustine, the Council of Chalcedon, and the Nicene Creed. Here, for example, is the Westminster Confession of Faith’s succinct summary (produced in 1646) of Biblical truth concerning the Trinity (chapter II, article 3):

In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost: the Father is of none, neither begotten, not proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.

What does Jakes confess?

Many people are excited by what Jakes said in The Elephant Room 2 (ER2) in his conversation with Mark Driscoll, with James MacDonald moderating. These people believe that, for the first time, Jakes publicly confessed his belief in orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.

Since independent apologists were deliberately excluded from ER2, with one even being threatened with arrest, and because official video and audio of the event has not yet been made available, we have to rely on those who were present to tell us what Jakes said. Trevin Wax, managing Editor of The Gospel Project at LifeWay, is a reliable and credible witness. He has posted a summary of the detailed notes that he took during the event. This is Wax’s record of the conversation with Jakes concerning the Trinity:

MacDonald: Apparently (to Jakes), there has been confusion about what you believe.

Jakes: My situation is not that different from his. My father was Methodist. My mother was Baptist. I was raised in a Baptist church. But I was raised in church without a committed experience with Christ when my father died. My conversion to Christ took place in a Oneness church.

Driscoll: By Oneness meaning?

Jakes: It was not a UPC church. It was similar.

Driscoll: Jesus only, modalism?

Jakes: They believe in Jesus Christ, he died and raised again. But how they explain the Godhead is how Trinitarians describe the gospel. I was in that church and raised in that church a number of years. I started preaching from that pulpit. But I’m also informed by the infiltration from my Baptist experience. I ended up Metho-Bapti-Costal. I’m a mixed breed. It is easy to throw rocks at people who you do not know, but when you see the work of Christ in their lives, you try to build bridges. So even though I moved away from what that church’s teaching, I didn’t want to throw rocks. Much of what we do today is teach people to take sides. But I believe we are called to reconcile wherever possible. My struggle was that in some passages, the doctrine fits and in other places it doesn’t. I don’t want to force my theology to fit my denomination.

(Jakes is going through Jesus’ baptism and the “let us” at creation.) The Bible made me rethink my ideas and I got quiet about it for a while. There are things that you can say about the Father you cannot say about the Son or the Spirit. There are distinctives. I’m very comfortable with that. There is very little difference between what I believe and what you believe. But I don’t think anything that any of us believes fully describes what God is. We in our finite minds cannot fully describe what God is.

Driscoll: We all would agree that in the nature of God there is mystery. But within that, for you, Bishop Jakes, the issue is one God manifesting Himself successively in three ways? Or one God existing eternally in three persons? What is your understanding now? Which one?

Jakes: I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though. You describe “manifestations” as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline. For God was manifest in the flesh. Paul is not a modalist, but he doesn’t think it’s robbery to say manifest in the flesh. Maybe it’s semantics, but Paul says this. Now, when we start talking about that sort of thing, I think it’s important to realize there are distinctives between the work of the Father and the work of the Son. I’m with you. I have been with you. There are many people within and outside denominations labeled Oneness that would be okay with this. We are taught in society that when we disagree with someone in a movement, we leave. But I still have associations with people in Onenness movements. We need to humble both sides and say, “We are trying to describe a God we love.” Why should I fall out and hate and throw names at you when it’s through a glass darkly? None of our books on the Godhead will be on sale in heaven.

Now, we all err to a degree in our beliefs. And, when we discover our error, it is right and proper not only that we unreservedly embrace the truth, but also that we repent of our error and renounce it.

In summary, Jakes stated his position to be this:

1. He believes that orthodox Trinitarian doctrine fits some passages of Scripture but not others.
2. He does not believe that the issue of modalism vs. Trinitarianism is one that should divide what he perceives to be the body of Christ. (This is also exactly what Apprising.org documented in November 2011.) In other words, Jakes’ considers that one’s beliefs concerning the Trinity are not a matter of fundamental import to the Christian Faith.
3. He affirms that he believes in ‘One God – Three Persons’, but is ‘not crazy about the word persons though’, and prefers to use the term ‘manifestations’, based on a single (misapplied) Bible verse. The statement of belief on his own congregation’s website does not use the word ‘three Persons’, but ‘three manifestations’.

Compare each of these three points with the settled historic orthodox Christian position:

1. The doctrine of the Trinity is taught by all the relevant Scriptures and, properly understood, none of them contradicts it. (That is, orthodox Trinitarianism fits all the Scriptures and reflects its whole counsel.)
2. From the time that modalism first arose, the Church has always unreservedly condemned it as a heresy that is fundamentally incompatible with the Gospel and Christian Faith. (Recall the final sentence of the Athanasian Creed: ‘This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.’)
3. The orthodox doctrine of the Trinity specifically and definitively affirms three Persons of one substance (or subsistence), power, and eternity. The formulas used to express this doctrine have always been intentionally crafted to exclude the possibility of the Godhead being understood as a tri-unity of three manifestations of one Person.

Based on his actual words, is it the case that Jakes clearly and unequivocally affirmed the historic orthodox understanding of the Trinity? Did Jakes show that he understood the word ‘person’ as being resolutely in opposition to the word ‘manifestation’? Did he demonstrate that he understood the centrality of the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity to the Gospel – Christ really and bodily crucified for our sins and raised from the dead, now at the right hand of the Father and interceding there as our Advocate with Him? Did Jakes repent of his former error of modalism, plainly repudiating that heresy as a valid Christian belief?

The answers to all these questions should be self evident.

It should also be abundantly clear that, even if Jakes personally believes in the Trinity, his refusal to condemn modalism as a heresy puts him outside the bounds of orthodoxy and places him at odds with the ecumenical creeds of the Christian Church.

Furthermore, ER2 achieved absolutely nothing with respect to clarifying Jakes’ views on the Trinity, because Jakes said nothing in ER2 that he has not said before.

On the 15 November 2011, Dan Phillips explained his objections to MacDonald’s invitation of Jakes. Phillips clearly linked to a September 2011 article on Here I Blog, documenting Jakes’ refusal in 2010 to reject unambiguously the heresy of modalism. The author of that article provides an extensive transcript of an interview with Jakes, conducted in 2010 by Sheridan Voysey on his show, Open House Interviews. The most pertinent extract is this:

Voysey: But what about your personally? [There is some crosstalk and the host points out that Jakes' church has a doctrinal statement that uses the word "manifestation" which is a term used by Oneness groups.]

Jakes: Yes, but my church is non-denominational. And we embrace people regardless of what denomination they come from. I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe that they are three Persons. I believe that in a way that Persons is a limited word for the Godhead. And even those who adhere to that say that to be true. But I think the issue is that they are distinctive. There are things that can be said about the Father that couldn’t be said about the Son and then the Holy Spirit… I believe that. I’ve grown into that, but I came into a Pentacostal church that happened to be Oneness. They loved me at a time that my father died. I became friends with them and in covenant with them and embraced them. And though I don’t agree with everything, and they don’t agree with everything, they’re evolving as a people.

Jakes here asserted that he believed in ‘three Persons’. He thus said nothing in ER2 that he hadn’t before.

Why did Jakes’ utterance of the phrase ‘three Persons’ not settle the matter? Simply, because the rest of Jakes’ language was ambivalent, and he failed to reject modalism as being incompatible with the Christian Faith.

Indeed, Jakes expressly states that he considers ‘Persons’ to be ‘a limited word for the Godhead’. What, exactly, does that statement mean? Is Jakes saying that the Godhead must subsist in multiple Persons? Or is he saying that, when he uses the word ‘Persons’, he simply means ‘Godhead’, and that his statements – including those he made in ER2 – should be understood accordingly (in which case, he most certainly did not affirm Trinitarian orthodoxy)? Is Jakes affirming orthodoxy, or denying it? The language is ambiguous, and this shows why it is essential that Trinitarian beliefs be tested by whether someone is willing to affirm Trinitarian doctrine using the tried-and-tested language of the historic orthodox Christian creeds and confessions. A first year seminary student knows this – MacDonald and Driscoll can surely not be in ignorance.

The author of the article on Here I Blog explains:

I asked Facebook friend, author and scholar, Dr. E. Calvin Beisner, who has published two books on the Trinity, his thoughts on Jakes’ comments in the above interview. Beisner replied:

Far, far, far too little evidence there to justify reclassifying Jakes as Trinitarian granted all he’s said before and his continuing to consider United Pentecostals his Christian brothers. Nothing quoted there falls outside what any reasonably sly and sophisticated United Pentecostal could say. Let Jakes clearly and explicitly affirm such clear Trinitarian statements as the Nicene Creed, the Symbol of Chalcedon, the Athanasian Creed, or even just Warfield’s summary–There is but one God; the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit each is God; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit each is a distinct Person–and then let him also repudiate the anti-Trinitarian statements of United Pentecostalism and other modalist sects, and it’ll be time to declare him converted to the true God. My impression is that Jakes is simply out to gain the trust of larger groups than the Oneness and Pentecostal crowd in which he’s been at home.

As I see it, there is cause for concern over giving Jakes a platform with Evangelical Christians. It would be great if Jakes were loving confronted on his positions with Scripture so he can clearly say what he means. Even if it could be shown that Jakes is now Trinitarian it would seem from the few examples listed above that he is not carrying out the pastoral duties of the role which he claims to fill.

When it comes to T.D. Jakes and Elephant Room it seems there is a lack of discernment when it comes to association.

Dr. Beisner is completely correct. For Jakes to be considered orthodox, let him clearly and explicitly affirm a clear, orthodox Trinitarian creed or formula. And let him ‘repudiate the anti-Trinitarian statements of United Pentecostalism and other modalist sects’. Until he does both of these things, the controversy will remain unresolved, and it is unsafe to regard him as orthodox.

MacDonald was duly warned by Dan Phillips what was required from Jakes for him to be considered orthodox. MacDonald was also pressured by the leaders of The Gospel Coalition. And yet, neither MacDonald nor Driscoll showed any awareness of the need to push Jakes to make an unequivocal affirmation of Trinitarian belief in the language of an accepted orthodox formula. Nor did they suggest to Jakes in their conversation that he needed to repudiate the anti-Trinitarian statements of the modalist sects with which he has associated.

Instead, MacDonald and Driscoll have allowed Jakes once again to give the impression of orthodoxy, without requiring him to have demonstrated its substance. Furthermore, they have been responsible, along with Steven Furtick, of introducing him – and commending him as orthodox – to the huge new audience of mainstream evangelicalism. And finally, they have done a disservice to T.D. Jakes himself, by not driving him to clarify his position in unambiguous terms – either to exonerate his name, or to lay bare his error so that he may be lovingly called to repentance.

MacDonald concluded the ER2 session with these words:

The issue of the Trinity is not a small thing. It is central to Christianity and a pillar of orthodoxy. However, when a man confesses his trinitarianism, and people say, “Is he Trinitarian enough?” That’s when we need to turn down the rhetoric and let a man’s confession and fruitfulness speak for itself.

MacDonald is right in this: the issue of the Trinity is no small thing. But MacDonald knew beforehand what was required from Jakes in this conversation, and MacDonald did not deliver. MacDonald has merely inflamed the controversy and sown the seeds of confusion into the wider church.

Having considered the ‘man’s confession’, let us now turn to Jakes’ ‘fruitfulness’.

What does Jakes teach?

In my comprehensive review of Jakes’ Code Orange Revival Sermon, I compared the content of Jakes’ teaching to the Scriptures. MacDonald’s lavish commendation of that sermon was somewhat in contrast to my own assessment.

Who am I to have been so bold as to review Jakes’ sermon? Well, Paul instructs the Thessalonians to ‘Test all things; hold fast what is good’ (1 Thess. 5:21). Luke, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, commends the Jews of Berea for scrutinizing even the teaching of the Apostle Paul:

Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

(Acts 17:10–11)

No one, therefore – not even St. Paul the Apostle – is beyond Biblical scrutiny. It is the privilege of even the most lowly saint to test everything that he or she hears spoken in God’s name with His written word, to find out whether the things spoken are so.

There is, of course, no intrinsic reason why you should accept my assessment of Jakes’ sermon over MacDonald’s. So go to the Scriptures for yourself, be like the Bereans, and ask this: ‘Who has made their case carefully in accordance with the Scriptures?’

Someone might object that it is unfair to judge Jakes’ doctrine on the basis of a single sermon. A sermon, perhaps. But that one?

Still, let us give Jakes the benefit of the doubt and examine more of what he teaches.

Do MacDonald and Driscoll affirm the promises that Jakes makes on behalf of God in this video, and the basis upon which he makes them? (The context for this clip is provided by the final video below.)

And do they affirm what Jakes believes concerning non-Christians and unrepentant sinners going to heaven?

(The two young men in that video show immeasurably greater Biblical discernment than either MacDonald or Driscoll.)

Do MacDonald and Driscoll find the following to be a faithful exegesis and legitimate application of 2 Kings 6:4–6? (You may safely skip the first three or four minutes.)

Has Jakes repudiated and repented of any of this teaching?

Do these videos – and there are many others readily available showing similar teaching – evidence the sort of ‘fruitfulness’ that MacDonald and Driscoll would commend as demonstrating a pastor’s orthodoxy?

Apparently so, as evidenced by this post-ER2 tweet:

What say you, Pastor James and Pastor Mark? Will you now repudiate the teaching of Jakes that is on display here? Will you, out of love for him and for the flock over which the Lord has made you shepherds, call him to repent?

How very far have we have fallen.

Yet even this, our great sin of apostasy, can be forgiven. May the Lord have mercy on his Church, cause us to repent, and to trust in Him for the remission of all our sins, and in His righteousness put to our account.

But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry.

(2 Tim. 3:14–4:5)

…Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

(Eph. 5:25–27)

Further reading

• A review of T.D. Jakes’ Code orange Revival Sermon
• Elephant Room 2: The emergence of pachydermism
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room

Update

A full transcript of the session is now available, courtesy of Tom Chantry. There are minor wording differences from that quoted above, but nothing substantive. Tom also has a link to an unofficial video of the session.

Dan Phillips of the Pyromaniacs immediately weighed-in with his article, Even better than The Race Card™. Phillips called out MacDonald for implicitly claiming divine authority, and for MacDonald’s accusing The Gospel Coalition’s leadership of sin for disagreeing with him.

Today, MacDonald has given his critics yet more ammunition, even before his conversation with T.D. Jakes.

Chris Rosebrough writes on his Letter of Marque blog:

Today, I traveled to Rowling Meadows, Illinois to attend James MacDonald’s Elephant Room 2 conversations. Upon entering the event venue I was met by a security guard and Jim Rowan, an elder at Harvest Bible Chapel and was promptly told that my entrance to the Elephant Room had been revoked and that I had to immediately leave the premises or I would be arrested for trespassing.

Erin Benziger recounts a similar story on her Do Not Be Surprised blog:

About 45 minutes ago, a friend and I walked through the doors of Harvest Bible Chapel in Rolling Meadows, IL. Why? To attend The Elephant Room 2, of course! Upon approaching the registration desk, the volunteers noticed that they could not find my name tag. I was ushered to the side, where I was confronted by Harvest Bible Chapel elder Jim Rowan and told that my registration had been revoked and refunded and that I was to leave the premises immediately. Hm, so now what is the elephant in the room?

This is The Elephant Room’s ‘Purpose Statement’:

The Elephant Room is more than an event. It is the outgrowth of an idea. The idea that the best way forward for the followers of Jesus lies not in crouching behind walls of disagreement but in conversation among all kinds of leaders about what the scriptures actually teach. We must insist on the biblical Gospel, right doctrine and practice but not isolate ourselves from relationship even with those who believe much differently.

Why, then, is the Elephant Room turning away at the door and threatening with arrest independent apologists who have pre-registered and travelled to attend? Why do they think fellowship with modalist T.D. Jakes is acceptable, but not that with orthodox Christians contending for the true Gospel and the Faith once delivered?

Chris Rosebrough’s observation is apposite:

Seems to me that the Elephant in the Room is the fact that the ONLY voices that James MacDonald and company are willing to hear are those that agree with them.

The Elephant Room has engaged in absolutely disgraceful, hypocritical and shameful behaviour. Rosebrough and Benziger were not even accorded the basic courtesy of being informed of their disinvitation before they went out of their way to travel to the event.

Why are the organizers of the Elephant Room frightened of independent scrutiny? What are they hiding?

This is one story that isn’t going to go away.

Update

Ken Silva of Apprising.org was speaking to Rosebrough on the phone when Rosebrough was turned away. The details of his account underline the dishonourable conduct of those behind The Elephant Room.

Update 2

Chris Rosebrough has uploaded a podcast discussing this event.

Update 3

Chris Rosebrough’s interview with Pastor Todd Wilken of Issues, Etc. (included in the Fighting For The Faith segment) is also available separately.

T.D. Jakes is the leader of The Potter’s House, a 30,000 member congregation located in southern Dallas, Texas. I had never heard a T.D. Jakes sermon before, though I knew of his reputation. I was curious to see – if only via an Internet video stream – the man that Elevation Church reminded us was named ‘America’s Best Preacher’ by Time Magazine. Would I be able to uncover the secret of his mystique? And would he preach the Biblical Gospel?

After 40 minutes or so of emotionally intense praise and worship, Steven Furtick, founder and lead pastor of Elevation Church, introduces Jakes to the manifestly ecstatic, cheering crowd. Furtick promises that God is about to speak to us, that our lives will never be the same:

God’s gonna honour your faith. He’s going to shake you, and He’s gonna remake you. And He’s gonna do things in your life that will blow your mind. And we’re believing that for you tonight.

We’re in revival. If you’re joining us from all over the world, you need to know that this is night 10 of Code Orange Revival. We’re coming to you live from Elevation Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, reaching over a 100 countries all over the world. And God has made an appointment with you tonight. He’s about to speak something to you. Your life will never be the same. In His presence is fullness of joy.

These things are not being done in a corner.

Furtick is on a roll:

If you’ve never heard T.D. Jakes preach, listen, you have heard Bishop T.D. Jakes preach. Let me explain that. Every preacher who has anything to say rips off Bishop T.D. Jakes. Bishop T.D. Jakes is the preacher, if you attend this church, who feeds your soul every single week. And you didn’t even ever know to write him a thank you note. Most of us quit apologising for how much we ripped-off Bishop T.D. Jakes a long time ago, because we were taking more time in our sermons attributing the credit to him for the way he fed our souls than we were actually preaching. So when Bishop Jakes said that he would be with us at Code Orange Revival, I just made up my mind that we would sing just enough to get you ready, and not show any videos or anything like that, and that I would sit down on my orange chair on the stage, and I would have the best night of my life listening to my favourite preacher in the world.

That’s some build-up. But Furtick has not yet finished:

When someone has touched your soul and been an instrument of God that speaks so deeply to you, and then, he agrees to come and share with your church, and help build your church, that’s gotta be one of the most meaningful moments of your life.

I want you to know, Bishop Jakes, that there’s a whole generation of younger pastors who, because you’ve been a pioneer to stay faithful to God’s word, and to preach with such power, that we’re now charging forward in the name of Jesus. And I want to let you know personally, that I’m gonna do my best to make you proud.

Furtick concludes his panegyric:

I appreciate the fact that you would come and be with us tonight. But, more importantly, I appreciate the fact that you’ve got a bunch of hungry people in here, who are about to lose their minds. Elevation Church, at every location, I want you to stand up on your feet right now, and let’s welcome to the stage the Greatest Preacher of Our Time – Bishop T.D. Jakes. Come on, let’s show him some embarrassing love.

Jakes takes the stage. He acknowledges the crowd’s standing ovation.

His charisma is immediately apparent.

He courts the crowd with some gentle banter. He is approachable. He is humorous. He is the embodiment of the idealized kindly grandfather.

He is your grandfather.

The audience cheer and offer their applause. This is the one whom those camping outside on the streets came to see.

Jakes praises Steven Furtick and Elevation Church. The Elevators love him. And Jakes makes sure that they know their love is reciprocated.

Jakes impresses with his modesty. With a suddenly faltering vulnerability, he declares:

I’m gonna spend most of my time just going right, er, er, to, to the word of God. I’m, er, um, honoured and appreciative of all of His goodness in my life. And, er, [I’m] trying to seek Him, trying to serve Him, trying to learn more of His grace and power. I, I think that I am more fascinated with Him now than I have ever been in my life.

Jakes carefully modulates his speech.

He starts softly, then builds to a minor crescendo, as he demonstrates that he is steeped in the knowledge and language of the Scriptures, the result of 33 years of ministry. With a rhythmic cadence, Jakes proclaims the praises of a majestic God:

It will never grow old. It will never grow weary. You will never reach the end of Him. From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God. His, His riches are unsearchable. His love incomprehensible. His ways past finding out. You will grow old and wither away, and still be searching the newness of God. His mercies are new every morning. Aren’t you glad you’re washed in the blood of the Lamb?

The cheering audience is enraptured. Surely, this is how a man of God must speak.

Little wonder that Furtick is captured by his spell.

Barely a few minutes in and Jakes, the master communicator who overcame his childhood lisp, has already won this crowd.

They trust him.

He is the humble, faithful servant who loves his God.

Abruptly, the tone changes. Everyone relaxes. Jakes turns to Hebrews chapter 4. We’re going to start in the Scriptures, as befits the preaching of the man from God.

Unexpectedly, there’s a problem. Jakes has lost one of his notes.

Temporarily disoriented, he looks around.

Someone hands him the missing note, just in time to prevent the enchantment from being shattered.

Jakes changes tempo – he’s back in control. He has everyone stand for the reading of God’s word. Jakes reads from the King James Version – he is reassuringly and self-deprecatingly old school.

We begin with the eighth chapter of the Gospel of Luke, verse forty-six:

And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.

He elaborates a little on the text, then moves quickly to Hebrews 4:15–16. He wants to ‘play with these two texts and see whether we can get them to cohabitate [sic] together.’

Jakes jokes with the crowd as he waits for them to find the book of Hebrews. They laugh adoringly with him.

Jakes begins to read:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be…

He pauses for a fraction of a second.

He enunciates the next word – ‘touched’ – with explosive emphasis.

He continues his recitation:

…with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come [‘How?’, Jakes interjects] boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Jakes reads with passion and feeling. You could listen to him read Scripture all day and still be eager for more.

He explains that he read all of that to get one word: ‘Touched, touched’.

Touch is the theme of tonight’s sermon.

Jakes changes pace. The crowd needs their release, a moment to reflect upon the word ‘touched’. The background music, which had stopped unnoticed minutes before, now resumes as Jakes prays, beseeching the Holy Spirit for His glory. Jakes’ humility is again on display:

There really is no preacher but You. There is no glory but Yours. There is no word but that word which proceedeth out of Your mouth. And we come before You like sparrows with our mouths open, waiting for, for bread to fall into our mouths. Feed us O God, until we want no more.

As Jakes finishes his prayer, he builds up to another carefully crafted crescendo – higher than the last, but nevertheless merely anticipatory of those yet to come. He truly is lord of the rhetorical arts and master of his own voice, consciously aware of the effect of his intonation’s every nuance.

Jakes begins his sermon proper. He talks at length about the importance and power of human touch. Words are insufficient – some meaning can be conveyed only through touch.

His discussion moves back to the book of Hebrews. He outlines with an infectious enthusiasm his understanding of the book: it is a comparative analysis of the Old and New covenants, ‘so that we might understand that what we have in our contemporary society – through the blood of Jesus Christ – is a better thing.’

This is the evening’s second mention of the blood of Christ. Surely, we must be hearing Gospel?

Jakes holds forth on why the New Covenant is better than the Old:

[God] always takes you to something better, never lesser. God is always in the business of taking you forwards, never backwards. He’s not in the business of diminishing you, he’s in the business of increasing you. He doesn’t want to divide you, he wants to multiply you. He doesn’t want to subtract from you, he wants to add on to you. And wherever God is, He will take you from faith to faith, and from glory to glory.

The crowd laps up the rhetoric. This is what they have yearned to hear. Jakes waits for the applause to quiet.

A niggling doubt begins to surface.

Is this the Gospel? That God is in the business of ‘increasing us’? Is that why the blood of Christ was shed?

What of John the Baptist, who said ‘He must increase, but I must decrease’ (John 3:30)? Has not the Lord ‘made all things for himself’, ‘even the wicked for the day of doom’ (Prov. 16:4)? Are not all things made for His benefit and His glory? Paul said – did he not? – ‘For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.’ (Rom. 11:36)

But perhaps Jakes is speaking of a spiritual increase, whereby, in the language of Luther’s Small Catechism, our old nature is drowned by daily sorrow and repentance, put to death, ‘that the new man should come forth daily and rise up, cleansed and righteous, to live forever in God’s presence’. For twice already Jakes has invoked the blood of Christ – surely he will bring us the Gospel.

Jakes tests his sway over his audience. He tells them, ‘Look at someone and say it’s getting better’.

They obey.

He has them utterly in thrall.

The crowd offers the appropriate liturgical response: ‘It’s getting better.’

Is this the Good News, then? That my life is continually getting better?

Was this the experience and hope of Stephen, calling upon the Lord to receive his spirit as he succumbed to the stones being hurled at him for the sake of the Gospel (Acts 7)? And what of Paul and his chains (Phil. 1)? Or the other apostles – all martyred, save John, as history recounts.

Jakes continues:

You have to know that. And you have to know that by faith, because sometimes, when He takes something or someone out of your life, the enemy will tempt you to think that your life is on a decline. But there is no way your life can be on a decline and you serve the Lord. Because He’s ever increasing brighter and brighter and brighter, to a perfect day. So if He pulled it out, if He took it away, if He moved it, it is only a sign that something is coming that is better than the thing before.

Something surely is coming that is better than what went before: ‘He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ’ (Phil. 1:6). ‘For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.’ (1 Cor. 13:12)

Could that be what Jakes means?

Jakes is right in this: the New Covenant is better than the Old. And this is indeed a major theme of the book of Hebrews.

But, for the writer to the Hebrews, the ‘better’ of the New Covenant is the perfect once-for-all sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, contrasted with the Old Covenant, which:

…having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.

(Heb. 10:1)

According to Hebrews, then, the superiority of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood is the once-for-all washing away of our sins 2,000 years ago at Calvary. The inferiority of the Old Covenant was demonstrated by the need for its continual sacrifices. These were a constant reminder of Israel’s ever present sins. The sacrifices had to be repeated, for it was impossible that sins could ever be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats (Heb. 10:4). Yet, what the sacrifices of the Old Covenant could not do, Christ accomplished once and for all on the cross.

Jakes, however, though he gives the impression of having expounded the book of Hebrews, does not mention sin or the need for propitiatory sacrifice.

Jakes, for the moment, leaves the ‘better’ of the New Covenant unexplained, except that, somehow, God is now in the business of increasing us. The New Covenant is better, because, well, it just is. And thus, for us, Jakes says, ‘It’s getting better’.

The ‘It’ in Jakes’ affirmation is left undefined, leaving us free to substitute whatever happens to appeal to our carnal desires. His message is universal, appealing to fallen human natures everywhere.

Not once does Jakes carefully delineate between the earthly blessings of this life and the spiritual riches that are surely ours in Christ. When Jakes says, ‘It’s getting better’, everyone implicitly understands that he is talking about this life. The spirit of Joel Osteen’s Best Life Now speaks to us.

When Paul asks ‘Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?’, he makes plain the ever present probability in the life of the believer of tribulation, distress, physical want, and yes, even death:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written:

“For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”

(Rom. 8:35–36)

Christ’s love does not spare us from these troubles, but rather overcomes them. Christ’s love and grace supply our every need, causing us to endure all things to His glory. Thus, Paul asserts:

Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

(Rom. 8:37–39)

Similarly, James tells us to ‘count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.’ (James 1:2–3).

Jesus does not promise us freedom from trouble and distress. Rather, he pronounces blessed ‘those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’. (Matt. 5:10)

‘Blessed’, Jesus says, ‘are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.’ He bids us ‘Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.’ (Matt. 5:11–12)

The Christian’s hope and reward is not in this life. Our hope is Christ; our reward – and what reward! – is to be with Him in heaven forever.

When Jakes talks of ‘It’s getting better’, he leaves us free to understand that he means this life, here and now. He commits the error of all word-faith teachers, claiming for this temporal life the blessings that belong to the eternal glory to come. He omits to mention the present tribulations and persecutions that Jesus indicates are in store for the faithful.

Jakes uses Biblical language. He even speaks of ‘the blood of Christ’. But in this sermon, that phrase can be no more than a magic incantation, for he tells us nothing of why our sin required that blood to be shed.

Christ commissioned His Church to preach ‘repentance and remission of sins’ (Luke 24:44–48), yet Jakes speaks neither of repentance nor of forgiveness.

Jakes returns to his text:

The thing, then, for the book of Hebrews, is the book of better things. And so what he is saying in the text, he says ‘We have not a high priest who cannot be touched’. The implication is almost, is almost a slur to that which is former, compared to that which exists now. Because up under the former administration through the Old Testament and the Old Covenant, there were high priests as well. But they could not be touched. They could not be touched. It almost reminds of a comparative analysis between religion and relationships.

Jakes here quotes only the first few words of Hebrews 4:15: ‘We have not a high priest who cannot be touched’. He builds on these words to make the point that the crucial difference between the Old and New Covenants is that we have a High Priest who can be touched, whereas the laws of the Old Covenant made the high priests untouchable. The Old Covenant was cold and religious. The New Covenant is warm and relational. We can touch our High Priest.

Jakes has played a verbal sleight of hand, a conjuring trick with words. Hebrews 4:15 does not teach that we can reach out and touch our High Priest. This is clear if the whole verse is quoted, even in Jakes’ King James Version:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

The problem becomes glaring if a modern translation is compared. Here is the same verse from the New King James Version:

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

This verse teaches not that we can reach out and touch Jesus, but that Christ can sympathize with our weakness – and specifically, our weakness in the face of temptation – because, like us, He was tempted in every way.

The incarnate Christ is fully human. He knows our weakness, and sympathizes with it. Unlike the high priests of the Old Testament, though, and unlike us, He never succumbed to temptation and remains without sin. Our High Priest’s sacrifice of Himself is pleasing to God because He is sinless.

But can Jakes really be intending to preach an entire sermon based upon a basic misreading of Hebrews 4:15?

As we continue to listen, it becomes clear that yes, yes he is.

Jakes introduces us to some more of his innovative theology:

[God] paid the ultimate price, that He might express the value of you by dying on the cross to give you eternal life. Never let any devil in hell make you think that you’re not valuable. Not based on the mistakes you made, or the things you did, or the circumstances of your birth. Not based on your economy, not based on your intellect, your education, or anything like that. Any time you doubt your worth, you tell the enemy ‘I must be valuable because Jesus died for me’. He died for me. I must be somebody, or He wouldn’t have died for me. No matter what I did, no matter what I’ve been through, no matter what mistakes I’ve made, I’ve got to be valuable because He’s shed His blood for me.

Touch your neighbour and say, ‘I am somebody’.

(The cheering audience, now on their feet and well conditioned, obeys.)

I am somebody only because Jesus paid a price to recognize my worth. I will never doubt my worth again.

Did Jesus die for us to recognize our intrinsic worth?

Is that the Gospel?

Or is the grace of God so overwhelming, His love so great that, even though we had no worth, even while we were rebels and at war with God, even though we had nothing whatsoever to offer Him, God nevertheless sent His only begotten Son to die in our place and purchase us as His pearl of great price?

In thesis 28 of his Heidelberg Disputation, Luther explains the Biblical teaching:

The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it.

We love the things that we find loveable. In Christ, God’s love takes we who are unloveable and makes us lovely.

Those who are in Christ by faith, those who are trusting in His work for them and not their work for Him, have truly been made into something beautiful and glorifying to God. Christ did not die for us because we were acceptable to God, but rather ‘He made us accepted in the beloved’. (Eph. 1:6) We, having been given the gift of trusting in Christ, are now to the praise of His glory. (Eph. 1:12) We have worth, then, because we are in Christ. We are not in Christ because we have worth.

If we had something to offer God, our salvation would not be by grace. Yet the grace of God bestowed upon us is unmerited favour:

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

(Eph. 2:8–10)

Jakes’ gospel glorifies us. It ascribes to us an intrinsic worth even outside of Christ. The true Gospel glorifies Christ, proclaiming His love and tender mercy even towards those who were utterly without merit.

Jakes’ gospel has no need to speak of sin, only ‘mistakes’, for his god looks upon sinners and sees their worth. The true Gospel has Jesus crucified in the place of sinners and for their sin, for without Christ’s appeasing sacrifice we should be consumed by the eternal wrath of a perfectly Holy and terrifyingly righteous God.

Jakes’ gospel speaks of the blood of the Lamb, but merely as a token of our intrinsic worth. The true Gospel speaks of the blood of the Lamb as that which cleanses us from sin, that which justifies, that which sanctifies, and that which glorifies. The true Gospel speaks of the perfect sacrifice for sins, once made forever:

By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.

But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.

(Heb. 10:10–18)

Jakes returns again to his theme of touch:

We have a High Priest who can be touched…He’s accessible. You can reach Him. You don’t need special people in the Church to reach Him. You don’t have to reach me and ask me to reach Him.

The definition of ‘touch’ has shifted. It now means ‘accessible’.

And what Jakes says here is true. But it is still not the meaning of the text he is expounding. He makes a valid point using invalid means. His is not a faithful handling of God’s word.

Jakes continues, demonstrating that he does understand on a certain level what Hebrews 4:15 actually says, that it’s not about us touching Jesus, but Jesus sympathizing with our weaknesses:

You cannot stop me from reaching God. He can be touched by the feeling of our infirmity. And sometimes He is the only one who knows how you feel.

Jakes makes a seamless transition, moving from touch being our reaching out to God, to Christ being touched by the feeling our infirmity, sympathizing with our weakness.

Even here, though, we have a subtle twist. Christ’s sympathy for our plight in the face of temptation is made into a general sympathy for how we feel. This is not what the text says.

Jakes clearly knows what Hebrews 4:15 teaches, but that does not stop him from preaching at length from that text ideas not found within it. This is not how to handle God’s word. This is not according it due respect. This is not a model of preaching to be emulated.

Jakes picks a verse because it contains a word – one word, as he stated – that he wants to use to make his point. He then uses that verse to lend a veneer of Biblical authority to whatever he has already decided to say. This is not the behaviour of a great preacher.

Jakes continues with his cavalier attitude towards the text.

In context, the word ‘infirmities’ in Hebrews 4:15 is speaking of our sin:

Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses [‘infirmities’, KJV], but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.

(Heb. 4:14–16, NKJV)

These verses contrast our sin with Christ’s sinlessness. Yet Jakes now takes the word ‘infirmities’ out of its context, and through wordplay almost imperceptibly changes the topic to that of our physical sicknesses. Speaking on behalf of God, he says:

It is the feeling of your infirmity that touches me. Your humility touches me. Your tears touch me. Your needs touch me.

This is shocking truth at the time that it is heralded in the word of God, because the ideology previously is that anybody who had infirmities couldn’t touch God. But now He has been wounded for our transgressions. He has been bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace is upon Him. And with his stripes we are healed.

Hebrews 14:15 does not teach that our humility touches God, nor our tears. It teaches that Christ understands our temptation, because He Himself was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin.

Jakes’ quoting of Isaiah 53:5 ought to be pure, comforting Gospel. But Jakes has not told us of our sin, and so we do not know our need of the Gospel. Jakes instead uses Isaiah to shift the topic, because he wants to talk about physical healing. And thus he moves to the subject of the Luke 8:46 verse that he read earlier: the woman with the issue of blood.

As he promised, Jakes has indeed played with the texts. He has forced them to cohabit.

There is much that could be discussed concerning Jakes’ extended handling of this text, but the pattern has been established. He handles this verse in a similarly cavalier way to his treatment of Hebrews 4:15. He emphasizes the word ‘touched’ in Luke 8:46. He makes the verse about us, about how we can reach out and touch Christ. Jakes again plays with words:

You must understand this woman has an issue that has engrossed her and overwhelmed her. And sometimes when we’re praying we have an issue, all we talk about is the issue. Oh Lord…do something about my issue, do something about my situation. And after a while…the only thing that’s big to you is your problem.

The woman’s issue of blood becomes our ‘issue’ – our situation, our problem. Jakes builds upon his new textual victim, teaching that we can reach out and touch Jesus, and that, when we do, He will fix our issues, our problems.

But Luke 8:46 is not about us. It is a historical record of one woman’s encounter with Jesus. It is not normative for our faith and practice. It does not teach that we can reach out and touch Jesus, and that He will then fix our problems in this life.

The woman’s issue of blood is not representative of our issues, our problems. Rather, the miracles that Jesus did in fulfilment of prophecy authenticated His ministry, demonstrating that He was the promised Messiah, God made flesh.

This is clear from Luke’s own gospel, in the chapter immediately prior to the one from which Jakes’ takes his text:

Then the disciples of John reported to him concerning all these things. And John, calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to Jesus, saying, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?”

When the men had come to Him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, ‘Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?’ ” And that very hour He cured many of infirmities, afflictions, and evil spirits; and to many blind He gave sight.

Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.”

(Luke 7:18–23)

In the book of Acts, this same Luke records Peter explaining the purpose of the miracles that Jesus performed:

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.

(Acts 2:22–24)

Once again, Jakes mishandles the Holy Scripture, taking a verse out of context and misapplying it to make a point of his own devising. He expertly clothes his error with Biblical language, obfuscating it with generous portions of truth.

Having shifted the ground, Jakes introduces a subtle version of the word-faith heresy, which teaches that the confession of our mouth actualizes reality:

And whenever you start talking more about your problem than you do your promise, you are praising your problem. And whatever you praise will be magnified in your life. Let’s explore this a little bit.

Time passes.

Jakes continues to whip up the crowd into ever increasing crescendos of ecstatic frenzy. They love him. They love his message.

I fear for him.

I fear for those who love his teaching.

Please, pray for him.

Please, pray for them.

Jakes now mocks faithful, humble, Biblical Christians, his voice saturated with scorn:

You’ll never get what you want from God being passive, sitting back and folding your arms and saying, ‘Well, if it’s the Lord’s will’. That woman [the woman with the issue] would have died praying ‘If it’s the Lord’s will’.

The crowd goes wild.

Jakes continues:

It, it wasn’t just about the Lord’s will. It was about her will.

You have a will – that God respects.

He created us with a will, an ability to make choices and make decisions…we have a will. That’s why he asks one man, ‘Wilt thou be made whole. Do you want it bad enough to crawl for it? Do you want it bad enough to go through what you gotta go through to get it? Do you want it bad enough to be laughed at and criticized, not be popular at work, and they call you a Christian and make jokes about you? How bad do you want it?

Contrast this with Jesus’ prayer to the Father:

Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.

Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him. And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

(Luke 22:42–44)

Compare Jakes’ words with how Jesus taught His disciples how to pray:

So He said to them, “When you pray, say:

Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.

(Luke 11:2–3)

Or the teaching of James:

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit”; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.” But now you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.

(James 4:13–16)

Or that of John:

Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him

(1 John 5:14–15)

The petition that God hears and grants is the petition made in accordance with His will. The Christian life is one of putting to death our own will, the desires of our flesh, that the express will of God might instead reign in us:

And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Gal. 5:25)

Jakes’ doctrine is arrogant. It is not from God. He magnifies us, and diminishes our Sovereign Creator. Heed the wisdom of Solomon:

Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.

(Ecc. 12:13–14)

Jakes continues to glorify our own spirits:

The human spirit – I’m not talking about the Holy Spirit – the human spirit is so strong that doctors will tell you that there have been cancer patients eaten up with cancer. They said ‘You’ll be dead in 30 days.’ And by sheer will, they have lived. I’m talking about the human spirit – I’m not even talking about the Holy Spirit…if the human spirit is that strong, imagine what happens when you add the holy.

The subtle version of the word-faith heresy introduced but moments earlier grows rapidly towards full maturity.

We see now why Jakes dared only to read a single verse from Luke 8. Had he read the story of the woman in context, it would have been plain that it was not the woman’s ‘aggressive’, bold and powerful will that made her well. No, it was her faith – her childlike trust in the ability and compassion of Jesus:

But as He went, the multitudes thronged Him. Now a woman, having a flow of blood for twelve years, who had spent all her livelihood on physicians and could not be healed by any, came from behind and touched the border of His garment. And immediately her flow of blood stopped.

And Jesus said, “Who touched Me?”

When all denied it, Peter and those with him said, “Master, the multitudes throng and press You, and You say, ‘Who touched Me?’”

But Jesus said, “Somebody touched Me, for I perceived power going out from Me. Now when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling; and falling down before Him, she declared to Him in the presence of all the people the reason she had touched Him and how she was healed immediately.

And He said to her, “Daughter, be of good cheer; your faith has made you well. Go in peace.”

(Luke 8:42–48)

Jakes continues his eisegesis, reading into the text with great profundity that which is not there.

The crowd, wild with excitement, does not care. They are utterly enchanted by his spell.

The music reappears, signalling the beginning of the end.

Jakes tells the crowd that God gave Him this message: ‘God told me, when you get to Code Orange, He said, tell my people, “You’re not just having a 12 day revival. You’re having a 12 day resurrection.”’

This self-proclaimed prophet of God launches into a frenzied series of final crescendos. This is the consummation for which he has been labouring, artfully seducing his audience.

The crowd is on its feet, clapping, hands waving, cheering. Dramatic music plays.

There is more revelation directly from God. ‘God says,’ claims Jakes, ‘I’m still touching. Whatever you want. Whatever you need.’

Again, Jakes gives free rein to our wants, our desires.

God is still touching, says Jakes. This message, this sermon, must therefore have been what God wanted Elevation to hear, never mind that it misrepresented and twisted God’s Holy word.

Jakes is still speaking:

Let him touch you.

You might be watching on a screen, you may be watching over the Internet, but allow the power of the Holy of the Spirit touch you right now. You might have a condition or an issue that has persisted in your life for years. But oh my God, the glory of God is here to minister in your life.

A singer sings He Touched Me.

Jakes declaims again, his voice charged with emotion:

I feel the Spirit of God sweeping up and down these aisles. The glory of the Lord is moving from pew to pew. Hallelujah. His presence is in this place right now. You don’t have an issue that he cannot fix. Every situation, every circumstance, every problem is within His grasp. You are to allow the Holy Spirit to do a new thing in your life right now. To heal you, to minister to you, and set you free. The glory of the Lord is here. Touch causes growth. You can’t grow in God if you won’t touch Him and allow Him to touch you.

Here we have another confusion of temporal and eternal promises in Christ. Can God fix my every problem in this life? Certainly. Does He promise in His word that He will? No.

Jakes’ teaching is deadly to those who are enticed by it. They trust in God to fix the problems of this life, to keep them from trial and tribulation. And should He not accede to their arrogant expectation, their faith is shipwrecked, because it was founded not upon the sure and certain promises of God’s word in Christ as recorded in the Scriptures, but upon the false words of a self-proclaimed prophet.

This preaching gives people a transient emotional high. It scratches itching ears, speaking into them what they are eager to hear. It manipulates, it deludes, it defrauds. Afterwards, when tribulation or persecution arises, immediately its victims stumble. They are lost, inoculated to the true Gospel. They have tried Christianity, so they think, and found it full of empty promises – it doesn’t work.

Is T.D. Jakes the Greatest Preacher of Our Time?

Only if the measure of greatness is the ability to play a virtuoso performance on the emotions of a crowd.

But that is not the Biblical measure of great preaching, which rather esteems fidelity to the text, and the ability to make the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. Law, to frighten comfortable sinners, to show us our need for a Saviour, to teach those who trust in Christ the perfect standard of godly living. Gospel, the power of Salvation to all who believe, that sweet comfort of Christ declaring ‘It is finished’, His having reconciled us to God and saved us through His perfect life, death and resurrection.

Jakes is concluding. He commands by divine authority that I allow the Holy Spirit to do a new thing in my life right now.

But does the Holy Spirit require my permission before He works in me? If so, how was I ever saved, when I was once His enemy and dead in my trespasses and sin?

In quiet, tremulous tones, Jakes pleads repeatedly over the music and song for us to ‘Touch Him’.

Even here, Jakes leaves us with a problem. For he has not yet told us how to touch Jesus. Jesus isn’t standing bodily before me, as he was for the woman with the issue of blood. I can’t reach out with my hand and touch the hem of His garment, as did she.

Jakes instructs the now reflective audience to ‘Climb over every obstacle and excuse.’

He changes tone. He feels the pain of every individual in the crowd. He assures them, ‘God wants to stop your issue, and set you free.’

Has God said in His word that He wants to stop your issue? By what authority, then, does Jakes proclaim this?

Jakes is well into his emotive plea for people to be saved:

Now, He won’t make you be saved. And He won’t make the backslider come back to Him. And He won’t make you be a Christian. You have to use an act of your will and say “I want this, I want this.”’

Is this true? Does the Scripture teach that we are saved through an act of our will?

Or does the Scripture instead teach that we ‘were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God’ (John 1:13)? Does it teach that ‘No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him’ (John 6:44)? Does it teach that ‘by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast’ (Eph. 2:8–9)?

Jakes pleads:

Wherever you are, if you’re here and you want to be a Christian, or if you’ve drifted away and you wanna come back to the Lord, would you raise your hand? Right where you are, and say, ‘I wanna be saved’?

What does Jakes mean, by ‘I wanna be saved’? Saved from what?

He gives his answer:

If the woman with the issue of blood with all of her problems and obstacles can say, ‘I want this’, lift that hand up! Yes! Lift it up! Yes!

For Jakes, salvation is deliverance from the problems and obstacles of this life. This is his beguiling message, for who would not want that? And, having heard his sermon, the fervent crowd has believed the lie that this is what God is offering them.

A few more words, and Jakes is done.

Furtick steps forward. ‘The Bible says that the angels in heaven rejoice when one sinner turns from their sins’.

The crowd cheers and claps.

Wait, what was that? – ‘when one sinner turns from their sins’?

But we have heard nothing at all about our sins from Jakes, only about our ‘issues’.

For Jakes, our problem is not that we have grievously offended an infinitely Holy and righteous God with our sin, and that He is therefore justly angry with us. For Jakes, our problem is not that we are deservedly facing an eternity in hell. No, for him, our problem is that we have issues in this life.

With his misdiagnosis of the human condition, Jakes’ gospel is necessarily false. His gospel is not that Christ died to bear the punishment for our sin and rose from the dead, but that Jesus died to show us our worth and to fix our problems.

Furtick, though, is smitten. He tells us that we’ve just received ‘one of the greatest gifts in the body of Christ’ – the treasure of God’s word through Bishop T.D. Jakes.

But we didn’t hear the proclamation of repentance and the forgiveness of sins.

We didn’t hear the Law or the Gospel.

We didn’t, then, hear God’s word.

And never once did Jakes make anything of the second half of Hebrews 4:15 – that the reason Jesus is able to sympathize with our weaknesses is that He was ‘in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.’ And that, therefore, we should ‘come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and grace to help in time of need’.

The writer to the Hebrews speaks not of a ‘Jesus who can fix my problems’, but of the Jesus who lived the sinless life that I could not and can not. It tells us of the Jesus whose righteousness is now put to our account by faith, so that we may come boldly to His throne and receive grace and mercy without fear or condemnation.

And how I need that grace and mercy! For even this very day, I find myself mired in sin and in need of forgiveness. I have not loved the Lord my God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength. I have not loved my neighbour as myself. Not even for a moment. I need, right now, a High Priest who has made a perfect sacrifice for my sins. I need His flawless righteousness put to my account.

Furtick finishes by telling Elevation that they have to ‘expect God to bless you because you’ve been a part of this’.

I am excluded, because I wasn’t part of that. I haven’t been on pilgrimage to the Holy City of Charlotte, North Carolina. I haven’t entered into the great Temple of Elevation Church. I have not worshipped at the feet of Bishop T.D. Jakes.

And, do you know what?

I’m glad.

Because I have something infinitely better.

I have a sinless High Priest who sympathizes with our weaknesses.

A sinless High Priest who took our sin upon Himself on the cross, and now pronounces absolution through His sure word.

A sinless High Priest who bids us come boldly to His throne of grace, that we might obtain mercy and grace to help in this time of need.

Repent, then, and believe this Good News.

Postscript

I have deliberately eschewed writing here about Jakes’ embrace of the heresy of modalism as valid Christian doctrine, notwithstanding modalism’s lethal opposition to the historic orthodox Christian faith, which is necessarily Trinitarian. Yes, the offering of mainstream evangelical platforms to such a man is a cause for profound alarm and ought certainly to have us weeping in fearful repentance before the Holy One who is Truth. But this was not that post.

Update

The official video of the T.D. Jakes’ sermon reviewed here is now available online: Code Orange Revival Night 10 – T.D. Jakes.

Update 2: further reading

Readers may also be interested in:

• Elephant Room 2: May we now regard T.D. Jakes as Trinitarian and Orthodox?
• Elephant Room 2: James White on T.D. Jakes and elephants in the room
• Elephant Room 2: The emergence of pachydermism

SOPA (the Stop Online Piracy Act) is a bill before the United States House of Representatives; PIPA (the Protect IP Act, where ‘IP’ stands for ‘Intellectual Property’) is its counterpart in the United States Senate. The forces behind these bills are lobbying for draconian rules that will, among other things:

1. Enable copyright holders to seek court orders against websites accused of enabling or facilitating copyright infringement. Search engines could then be required to remove links to such sites, and the companies that provide your Internet service could be ordered to block access to them.
2. Make the unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content a crime, with a maximum penalty of five years in prison for ten such infringements within six months.
3. Give immunity to Internet services that voluntarily take action against websites dedicated to infringement.
4. Make websites liable for the comments and actions of their visitors.

If passed, legislation such as this would have a chilling effect upon free speech. Marvin Ammori, a leading First Amendment lawyer and Internet policy expert, writes this (emphasis mine):

From a free speech perspective, the problem can be stated simply. The bills are not limited; they’re sledgehammers not scalpels.

They do not, as often advertised by the copyright industry, merely target foreign “rogue” sites like the Pirate Bay. They are not even limited to sites guilty of any copyright infringement, direct or even contributory infringement. Instead, the bills would extend not only to foreign but also to domestic websites that merely “facilitate” or “enable” infringement. Thus, in their language, the bills target considerable protected speech on legitimate sites such as YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook. The bills also affect non-infringing speech by search engines, advertisers, and domain name providers.

Coupled with this overbroad scope, the bills authorize remedies that lack the usual procedural safeguards, ensuring that even more protected, non-infringing speech will be restricted. Even though a judicial determination is generally required to remove speech from circulation, the House version empowers copyright-holders to send notices to payment processors and advertisers to shut off funding for non-infringing sites that meet the bill’s broad definitions. The bills also encourage over-enforcement by making companies immune from suit for mistakenly punishing sites outside even the bills’ over-expansive scope.

(Online source)

What’s bad for free speech is bad for sound doctrine. In the battle for ideas, the ability to discuss those ideas freely is critical. And free discussion requires the freedom to reference and quote opposing voices.

Christian websites, blogs and radio programmes depend upon being able to make fair use of copyrighted content for the purposes of comment and criticism. Our ability to stand up for sound doctrine will be severely impaired if we cannot freely quote, embed or link to the copyrighted sermons, articles, books and videos of today’s false teachers.

Imagine, for example, if Chris Rosebrough had to obtain permission from the copyright holder every time he reviewed a sermon on his Fighting for the Faith radio show, to avoid being guilty of ‘the unauthorized streaming of copyrighted content’. Chris would simply not be able to do his work of critiquing error and using it as a foil for teaching Biblical truth.

This is not a theoretical concern. Existing legislation such as the DMCA is already being used to surpress the truth by, for example, having inconvenient material pulled from YouTube:

Your opposition to SOPA and PIPA – and any similar future legislation – is vital. If you live in the US, please contact your Congressional representatives today. Google also has a petition that you can sign.

Further reading

You can learn more about SOPA and PIPA from the following articles:

• Techdirt’s Definitive Post On Why SOPA And Protect IP Are Bad, Bad Ideas
• SOPA is the equivalent of smashing the Gutenberg press
• Wikipedia’s article on the Stop Online Piracy Act
• Wikipedia’s article on the PROTECT IP Act

Matt Chandler’s reward for being faithful to His Lord and Master by proclaiming Law and Gospel was to have his sermon pulled from the rebroadcast of that evening’s Code Orange Revival event. Speculation abounded as to the reason for this, but Geoff Schultz – Motion Graphic Designer at Furtick’s Elevation Church – has posted on Facebook what sounds very much like an official line. Schultz writes:

The team decided to focus the rebroadcast on Jesus, so we reformatted the content a bit – We are trying to stay in the flow of what the Spirit is leading us to do.

Here’s a screenshot (courtesy of Apprising Ministries) of Schultz’ Facebook wall:

Let me translate Schultz’ explanation for you:

Steven Furtick was embarrassed by Matt Chandler’s implied criticism of his teaching. So we pulled reformatted Chandler’s sermon into non-existence, even though this meant that people wouldn’t hear about their fallen condition and be pointed towards Jesus – We are trying to stay in the flow of what a spirit is leading us to do.

For more Code Orange coverage, see Apprising Ministries, Fighting for the Faith and Do Not Be Surprised.

Update

Under pressure, Elevation’s story has apparently shifted. The Christian Post has reported a new explanation for the cut:

Elevation’s spokesperson, Tonia Bendickson, told CP earlier, “We decided to do prayer time live during the first rebroadcast time. We were getting so many requests for prayer.”

According to her Facebook page, Bendickson is Elevation’s ‘Outreach and Communications Director’. Hers is thus as official a statement as one could hope for.

Now, it is possible that Schultz’ and Bendickson’s apparently contradictory explanations can be harmonized. Or perhaps Schultz was simply mistaken in his original post, even though he seemed to have first-hand knowledge of events. One also wonders whether, if Chandler’s good sermon had led to a great many prayer requests, why Elevation wouldn’t want to rebroadcast it immediately, for the benefit of everyone watching. Or perhaps the prayer requests were not the result of the sermon that people had just heard?

As it stands, Bendickson’s statement raises more questions than it answers. The greater story, though, will continue to be the overall content – Matt Chandler’s sermon excepted – of the teaching at the Code Orange Revival.

1. Get hold of a reliable translation of the Bible, such as the NKJV or the ESV. (Sorry, no, The Message doesn’t work for this spiritual discipline.)
2. Open it.
3. Read.

Those, like Wright, who advocate the New Perspectives, posit that the Reformers were wrong in seeing first century Judaism as a religion of legalistic works-righteousness. As Dr. Cornelis P. Venema (President of Mid-America Reformed Seminary, where he is also Professor of Doctrinal Studies) writes in his very helpful little book addresing the the New Perspectives, Getting the Gospel Right:

The problem with the Judaizers’ appeal to the ‘works of the law’ was not its legalism, Wright insists, but its perverted nationalism. (p. 37, original emphasis)

Venema continues in his description of Wright’s views:

One of the unfortunate features of the Reformation and of much evangelical thinking, according to Wright, is that they reduce the gospel to ‘a message about “how one gets saved”, in an individual and ahistorical sense’.

In this way of thinking, the focus of attention, so far as the gospel is concerned, is upon ‘something that in older theology would be called an ordo salutis, an order of salvation’. Because of its inappropriate focus upon the salvation of individual sinners, the older Reformation tradition was bound to exaggerate the importance of the doctrine of justification.

Whereas the Reformation perspective understands the gospel in terms of the salvation of individual sinners, Wright maintains that Paul’s gospel has a different focus. According to Wright, the basic message of Paul’s gospel focuses upon the lordship of Jesus Christ.

(pp. 39–40, bold emphasis mine)

So, according to Venema, Wright thinks that the Reformers inappropriately focused on the salvation of individual sinners and exaggerated the importance of the doctrine of justification (how we obtain a right standing before God). Oh dear.

Venema summarizes (p. 41, Getting the Gospel Right) Wright’s understanding of the gospel like this (citing p. 61 of Wright’s book, What Saint Paul Really Said):

The great theme of the gospel is this message of Jesus’ lordship and its life- and world-transforming significance. Rather than the salvation of individual sinners, the theme of Christ’s lordship is the primary focus of Paul’s teaching.

Now, while it is true that the gospel does have life-changing consequences, these are not the Gospel itself, but its fruits.

And yes, Christ is most certainly Lord – Lord of all. But the Lordship of Christ is no comfort to a sinner standing before God clothed in his own filthy righteousness, but a terror. The lordship of Christ is a glorious truth, but it is not the Gospel. The Gospel is Christ’s life, death and resurrection for sinners.

Now, Venema’s summary of Wright’s gospel seems fair. This is, verbatim, how Wright defines his gospel in my copy of What St Paul Really Said (1997, Lion, p. 60):

[The gospel] is a fourfold announcement about Jesus:

1. In Jesus of Nazareth, specifically in his cross, the decisive victory has been won over all the powers of evil, including sin and death themselves.

2. In Jesus’ resurrection the New Age has dawned, inaugurating the long-awaited time when the prophecies would be fulfilled, when Israel’s exile would be over, and the whole world would be addressed by the one creator God.

3. The crucified and risen Jesus was, all along, Israel’s Messiah, her representative king.

4. Jesus was therefore also the Lord, the true king of the world, the one at whose name every knee would bow.

It is, moreover, a double and dramatic announcement about God:

1. The God of Israel is the one true God, and the pagan deities are mere idols.

2. The God of Israel is now made known in and through Jesus himself.

There’s much that is true there. Yet, somehow, Wright manages to have Jesus and the cross without ever affirming that Jesus died there for sinners. Instead, the cross is presented merely as a ‘decisive victory’ (which it is), without it also being the place where Jesus bore the punishment for our sin, being the propitiating sacrifice that reconciles us with an infinitely holy and righteous God. Wright’s version of the gospel sounds like the Biblical Gospel, but it is subtly different in critical ways. The problem lies not so much in what Wright includes, but in what he leaves out.

Contrast the Apostle Paul’s definition of the Gospel:

Moreover, brethren, I declare to you the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received and in which you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast that word which I preached to you – unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time. (1 Cor. 15:1–8)

If Wright is correct, Paul is wrong, and the Gospel is not primarily about Christ’s death in the place of sinners and for their sins. If Paul is correct, then Wright is mistaken, and the Gospel is something other than the world-changing proclamation of the victory and kingship of Christ.

Wright’s views take him further, leading him even to reject the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers. Venema, again (p. 45, Getting the Gospel Right):

Though Wright affirms the forensic nature of this language in a way that is reminiscent of the Reformation view of justification, he maintains that the Reformation’s idea of the imputing or imparting of God’s righteousness to believers makes no sense.

If we use the language of the law court, it makes no sense whatever to say that the judge imputes, imparts, bequeaths, conveys or otherwise transfers his righteousness to either the plaintiff or the defendant. Righteous is not an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom. (What Saint Paul Really Said, p. 99)

According to Wright, the ‘righteousness of God’, which refers to God’s faithfulness to the promises he made to Israel, cannot be granted or imputed to believers. Nothing like an act of imputation need occur in order for God to declare in favour of his people.

Wright seems mistakenly to view the Reformer’s understanding of the Biblical language of the law court through the lens of late 20th century jurisprudence. And in an attempt to bolster his position, Wright sets up a straw man, for not one of Reformers ever suggested that righteousness is ‘an object, a substance or a gas which can be passed across the courtroom’. (Wright’s words here are curious, because the idea of righteousness as an object imparted to the believer seems reminiscent of the Roman Catholic view of infused righteousness, something entirely antithetical to the doctrine of imputation.)

Compare Wright’s view with the words of St. Paul to the Romans:

But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified [declared righteous] freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith, to demonstrate His righteousness, because in His forbearance God had passed over the sins that were previously committed, to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law.

(Romans 3:21–28)

What then shall we say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.” Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt.

But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness, just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:

“Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven,
And whose sins are covered;
Blessed is the man to whom the LORD shall not impute sin.”

(Rom. 4:1–8)

And to the Philippians:

But what things were gain to me, these I have counted loss for Christ. Yet indeed I also count all things loss for the excellence of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them as rubbish, that I may gain Christ and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith; that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death, if, by any means, I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.

(Phil. 3:7–11)

Paul speaks plainly of a righteousness from God that is accounted – imputed – to us through faith in Christ. One would have to work very hard to make those texts say something else.

By denying the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to believers, Wright has shifted the focus of the Gospel entirely away from justification by grace alone through faith alone in the merits of Christ alone. Instead, he offers a new locus of attention, the world-changing announcement of the kingship of Christ. Be in no doubt that Wright has radically redefined the Gospel.

How important is the doctrine of imputation, the doctrine of justification by faith alone? Martin Luther called it the ‘main doctrine of Christianity’ (Luther’s Works, vol. 26, commenting on Gal. 2:5).

In discussing the active righteousness that comes from keeping the Law, and the passive righteousness that we have through faith in Christ (that is, Christ’s own righteousness put to our account, though we did nothing to merit it), Luther makes clear the centrality of the doctrine of justification by the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to us:

The flesh is accused, exercised, saddened, and crushed by the active righteousness of the Law. But the spirit rules, rejoices, and is saved by passive righteousness, because it knows that it has a Lord sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Father, who has abolished the Law, sin, and death, and has trodden all evils underfoot, has led them captive and triumphed over them in Himself (Col. 2:15). In this epistle [Paul’s letter to the Galatians], therefore, Paul is concerned to instruct, comfort, and sustain us diligently in a perfect knowledge of this most excellent and Christian righteousness. For if the doctrine of justification is lost, the whole of Christian doctrine is lost.

(The Argument of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, Luther’s Works, vol. 26, Concordia Publishing House, 1999)

Like Wright, Luther makes much of the victory of Christ. Unlike Wright, Luther sees the comfort, joy, and power of this victory as originating in the perfect righteousness that Christ has won being accounted to us by faith.

Though there is much that is true and helpful in what Wright has written, his New Perspective is nothing less than an audacious challenge to what Dr. Walter Martin called ‘the historic orthodox Christian faith.’

Venema concludes Getting the Gospel Right with these fitting words (pp. 91–92):

According to the Reformation perspective, the most basic problem that any human being faces is the problem of his or her guilt before God. No human achievement or moral act can make amends before God for human sin and disobedience, No one can find favour with God on the basis of his or her own obedience to the requirements of God’s holy law. Only the perfect obedience and sacrificial death of Christ upon the cross can satisfy the demands of God’s justice and secure the believer’s right standing before him.

…

Thought it may be admitted that the new perspective has illumined some significant aspects of Paul’s understanding of the gospel, its claims to offer a more satisfying interpretation of Paul’s gospel than that of the Reformation seem at best overstated, and at worst clearly wrong. In a biblically and theologically satisfying manner, the Reformation perspective continues to capture one of the great themes of the Christian gospel: the amazing grace of God, who justifies, not the righteous, but the ungodly, for the sake of Christ.

Amen to that.

I highly recommend Venema’s gem of a book, which also gives an overview and critique of E.P. Sanders’ and J.D.G. Dunn’s views, in addition to those of Wright. Getting the Gospel Right is only 92 small pages long, so you can read it in a couple of hours.

• Getting the Gospel Right: Assessing the Reformation and New Perspectives on Paul

Resources for further study

In 2009, Dr. Albert Mohler (president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) chaired a panel on N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification. I found the discussion to be a helpful introduction to the topic.

• Panel Discussion – N.T. Wright and the Doctrine of Justification (Video) (Audio)

(My thanks to Pastor Paul T. McCain for linking to this discussion in his article, Why Wright is Wrong: Refuting the “New Perspective on Paul” Movement.)

For a more detailed treatment rebutting the claims of the New Perspectives on Paul, the following books are widely regarded (they’re waiting on my bookshelf in my reading queue):

• The Gospel of Free Acceptance in Christ: An Assessment of the Reformation and ‘New Perspectives’ on Paul (also by Cornelis P. Venema).
• Justification and Variegated Nomism (Volume 1): The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism (Edited by D.A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid & Peter T. O’Brien)
• Justification and Variegated Nomism (Volume 2): The Paradoxes of Paul (Edited by D.A. Carson, Mark A. Seifrid & Peter T. O’Brien)

In response to my post of Dr. Rosenbladt’s refreshing presentation, The Gospel for Those Broken by the Church, both Charisse and Jason weighed-in on the topic of sanctification. I greatly appreciate thoughtful comments like theirs, and I read them all with care and interest. I respond here with some initial thoughts.

I have been observing some of the wider debate on sanctification that has recently been occurring.

I say ‘debate’, but some of what I have been seeing has been, regrettably, outright and uncharitable hostility towards those of us who would argue that sanctification is God’s work in the life of the believer, rooted in the Gospel, and causing us to produce fruit. Careless (and certainly, as far as I can see, unwarranted) accusations of antinomianism have been thrown around by some, though there have been many other, more honourable, voices also engaged in the discussion. I wish all were as measured in their comments as are Jason and Charisse.

I have been forcing myself to read some blog posts that I find intensely frustrating, as I want to be sure that I am properly grasping the nuances of the opposition’s position and understand their arguments. I am inclined to suspect that much of the heat is the result of various misunderstandings of what other people are actually intending to say, and perhaps a fair degree of people talking past each other by using identical terminology to mean different things. Which is not to say that there are not also important differences of substance at play here – there most certainly are.

In her comment, Charisse seemed to think that Dr. Rosenbladt was perhaps blurring the line between justifcation and sanctification. My memory of the detail of what Dr. Rosenbladt said is fading fast, though I don’t personally recall thinking anything amiss with his doctrine of sanctification in his lecture. As a Professor of Theology at Concordia University, Irvine, and LCMS minister, I’d be very surprised if Dr. Rosenbladt were anything other than in complete conformance with the doctrine taught by the Book of Concord (the Lutheran Confessions). Of course, not everyone would agree with the Confessional Lutheran view.

I wondered whether Jason had read Francis Pieper (a Confessional Lutheran theologian) on the subject of sanctification. Pieper writes about this in volume 3 of his Christian Dogmatics. (I have the Logos edition.) I found Pieper very helpful when I was looking into this topic early last year. I think I should benefit if I were to read him again soon.

From my preliminary reading thus far of Francis Pieper and the Lutheran Confessions, I would say that they both seem to be in accord with what I had understood about sanctification from my prior reading of Scripture. (I say this as a non-Lutheran.)

I have endeavoured to summarize below some of the main points of what Pieper says on sanctification. What he teaches conforms to the Lutheran Confessions. I trust that, in my desire for brevity here, I shall not inadvertently misrepresent the Confessional Lutheran position too badly. (I welcome correction if I do.) The following is in no way an exhaustive treatment of the subject.

What is sanctification?

There are two senses of sanctification: the wide and the narrow. Pieper quotes Quenstedt (another Lutheran theologian, and nephew of Johann Gerhard):

‘Sanctification’ is at times used in a wide sense, including justification, as in Eph. 5:26; Heb. 10:10; at other times, however, it is used in a narrow sense and, so understood, is identical with renewal in the strict sense, as in Rom. 6:19, 22; 1 Thess. 4:3–4, 7.” (II, p. 914.)

Pieper goes on:

In its narrow sense, sanctification designates the internal spiritual transformation of the believer or the holiness of life which follows upon justification. It is so used in Rom. 6:22: “Now being made free from sin and become servants to God [namely, by justification], ye have your fruit unto holiness.” Vv. 18–19: “Being then made free from sin [namely, by faith in the Gospel, v. 17, or by justification], ye became the servants of righteousness … even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.” In the narrower sense of sanctification the Formula of Concord states: “In the same manner the order also between faith and good works must abide and be maintained, and likewise between justification and renewal, or sanctification. For good works do not precede faith, neither does sanctification precede justification. But first faith is kindled in us in conversion by the Holy Ghost from the hearing of the Gospel. This lays hold of God’s grace in Christ, by which the person is justified. Then, when the person is justified, he is also renewed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, from which renewal and sanctification the fruits of good works must then follow.” (Trigl. 929, Sol. Decl., III, 40 f.)

The essential difference between justification and sanctification

Justification takes place outside of man – justification is God’s declaration that we (who have no righteousness of our own) are accounted righteous for the sake of Christ.

Conversely, sanctification (in the narrow sense) takes place within us. Pieper: ‘God changes the unrighteous into a righteous man’, and, ‘the sanctification which flows from faith consists in an inward moral transformation’. This work, of course, is never complete in this life – we are simul iustus et peccator.

The relation of justification to sanctification

Although they are distinct, justification and sanctification, faith and works, are inseparably connected. On the relation of justification to ‘renewal’ (that is, sanctification in the narrow sense), the Formula of Concord states:

This should not be understood as though justification and renewal were sundered from one another in such a manner that a genuine faith sometimes could exist and continue for a time together with a wicked intention, but hereby only the order (of cause and effects, of antecedents and consequents) is indicated, how one precedes or succeeds the other. For what Luther has correctly said remains true nevertheless: Faith and good works well agree and fit together (are inseparably connected); but it is faith alone, without works, which lays hold of the blessing; and yet it is never and at no time alone. (Trigl. 929, Sol. Decl., II, 41.) [My emphasis.]

Whose work is sanctification?

Pieper and the Lutheran Confessions affirm that it is God who works sanctification in us. However, they both also affirm that we cooperate with this work. Yet, certainly we do not participate in our sanctification as an equal or even junior partner. Rather, God works in us to cause us to cooperate with Him in His work of sanctification within us. In other words, the entire work of sanctification, including our cooperative part in it, is utterly and entirely dependent upon God and His work. Here is Pieper, again:

However—and let this be dearly understood—the working of God and the working of the new man are not co-ordinate, “as when two horses draw a wagon,” but the activity of the new man is always and fully subordinated to God’s activity; it always takes place dependenter a Deo [dependent upon God]. In other words: it is the Holy Ghost who produces the activity of the new man; the new man remains the organ of the Holy Ghost.

All these points are set forth in the Formula of Concord: “From this, then, it follows that as soon as the Holy Ghost, through the Word and holy Sacraments, has begun in us His work of regeneration and renewal, it is certain that through the power of the Holy Ghost we can and should co-operate, although still in great weakness. But this (that we co-operate) does not occur from our carnal, natural powers, but from the new powers and gifts which the Holy Ghost has begun in us in conversion, as St. Paul expressly and earnestly exhorts that as workers together with Him we receive not the grace of God in vain (2 Cor. 6:1). But this is to be understood in no other way than that the converted man does good to such an extent and so long as God by His Holy Spirit rules, guides, and leads him, and that as soon as God would withdraw HIS gracious hand from him, he could not for a moment persevere in obedience to God. But if this were understood thus, that the converted man co-operates with the Holy Ghost in the manner as when two horses draw a wagon, this could in no way be conceded without prejudice to the divine truth.” (Trigl. 907, Sol. Decl., II, 65 f.)

This is, of course, exactly what Paul teaches the Philippians when he exhorts them to outwork in their lives the consequences of the Gospel that he has just presented to them:

…work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure. (Phil. 2:12b–13).

Thus, in a certain very limited sense, the word ‘synergism’ (= ‘working together’) could be applied correctly to the work of sanctification. But, to do so would, I think, immediately risk conveying to anyone without a firm grasp of the correct doctrine of sanctification the gravely erroneous impression that somehow we were contributing to our sanctification in the same kind of way as is God. Yet, the truth is that we only work ‘to such an extent and so long as God by His Holy Spirit rules, guides and leads’. Were it not for God’s active working in us, we could contribute nothing whatsoever to our sanctification – no obedience, no good works, no good intentions, no cooperation at all.

In view of the danger of being misunderstood, I think it wiser to avoid entirely the term ‘synergism’ when describing sanctification. Sanctification is God’s work in us by the Holy Spirit through His Word applying to us the merits of Christ, thereby causing us to produce fruit.

Incidentally, the Westminster Confession of Faith ch. XVI seems to me to be in agreement with the Lutherans concerning the origin of our sanctification and good works:

Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ. (John 15:4–6, Ezek. 36:26–27) And that they may be enabled thereunto, beside the graces they have already received, there is required an actual influence of the same Holy Spirit to work in them to will, and to do, of His good pleasure: (Phil. 2:13, Phil. 4:13, 2 Cor. 3:5) yet are they not hereupon to grow negligent, as if they were not bound to perform any duty unless upon a special motion of the Spirit; but they ought to be diligent in stirring up the grace of God that is in them. (Phil. 2:12, Heb. 6:11–12, 2 Pet. 1:3, 5, 10–11, Isa. 64:7, 2 Tim. 1:6, Acts 26:6–7, Jude 20–21)

Through what means does God work sanctification in us?

God works sanctification in us through His word (John 17:17), and more specifically, through the Gospel – though the Law is also a servant to the Gospel in this endeavour. Pieper writes:

Strictly speaking, only that Word which mortifies the old man and supplies strength to the new man is the means of sanctification, namely, the Gospel (the means of grace), not the Law. It is only the Gospel which dethrones sin; the Law can only multiply sin (Rom. 6:14; 7:5–6; Jer. 31:31 ff.). However, the Law has its place in the work of sanctification; it serves the Gospel. Over against the inexact statements of some Lutheran theologians Carpzov shows that only the Gospel (solum evangelium) is the means (organum) of renewal and sanctification, but that “the work of the Law is needed to accomplish a certain purpose.”

How does the Law assist in the work of sanctification? The Law continually prepares the way for the Gospel. Since the Christian, having the old evil flesh clinging to him, is ever inclined to make light of the sin which still adheres to him, it is necessary that the Law continually show him his sinfulness and damnableness. Where the knowledge of sin ceases, there also faith in the remission of sins, faith in the Gospel, has come to an end (cf. Luther against the Antinomians, St. L. XX: 1646), and thus the Gospel, the only source of sanctification, is choked off. Again, according to his flesh the Christian is always inclined to follow his own ideas as to what constitutes a saintly, God-pleasing life, and he will look upon certain sins as virtues and upon certain virtues as sins. And in view of this fact that by nature he is but dimly conscious of the holy will of God, he is in constant need of the revealed Law as a “rule” to show him at all times the true nature of the God-pleasing life and truly good works.

Here, Pieper shows us how both the second and the third uses of the Law serve the Gospel in the work of sanctification. In its second use, the Law continually shows us our sin and thus forces us to take refuge in the Gospel, which delivers to us the remission of sins in Christ and His righteousness put to our account. In its third use, the Law shows the standard of perfect holy living that God has willed for our lives, thus keeping us from accepting any measure of godliness that is lesser or other than God’s own.

Pieper immediately goes on to reiterate his critical point that, even though the Law serves the Gospel in these ways in our sanctification, it is only the Gospel – and not the Law – that has power to put to death the old nature and vivify the new. He writes:

But we must bear in mind that the strength to do good works and to abstain from evil works is supplied solely by the Gospel. Paul admonishes the Christians “by the mercies of God” (Rom. 12:1) to present their bodies a sacrifice unto God. The only thing that will create the love of God and of the brethren in us is “because He first loved us” (1 John 4:19, 11). In every case the Gospel must write the Law of God into our hearts. Luther reminds us that those preachers who use the Law instead of the Gospel to effect sanctification are to blame for the paucity of sanctification and good works. [My emphasis.]

Parting thoughts

Well, there’s much more that could be be said, but perhaps the above might be somewhat helpful to one or two readers. I also recommend hunting through the New Testament for all references to sanctification, asking of each, ‘Who here is doing the work of sanctification?’

Peace and grace.

In this superb talk, Dr. Rosenbladt explains why so many people end up leaving our churches not just disillusioned, but angry. He goes on to present the undiluted Gospel as the antidote.

You can listen to (or watch) this address for free on Dr. Rosenbladt’s New Reformation Press website:

• The Gospel for Those Broken by the Church

Patton makes a good argument: that Lewis set out to defend orthodoxy and the person and work of Jesus Christ, whereas Bell seems to delight in challenging them. And, no doubt, this provides a substantive part of the answer to Patton’s question. Much of what Lewis writes is helpful, and the broad appeal of his apologetic work undeniable. But I am not sure that Patton has quite explained the entirety of Lewis’ attraction.

Now, I am far from an expert on Lewis. I read the Narnia series as a child, along with The Screwtape Letters, and then some of his other works in my early twenties. Much more recently, I read and enjoyed his fictional Cosmic Trilogy. I very much appreciated Lewis’ essay, On the Reading of Old Books, which he wrote as the introduction to a translation of Athanasius’ work On the Incarnation. Everyone should read that essay. Nevertheless, there is very much of Lewis’ work that I have (yet) to assimilate, though his general theological perspective is apparent in what I have read.

Lewis was certainly not orthodox in a great deal of his theology, as Patton observes. Even in The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, for example, it is decidedly odd that Aslan pays a ransom to the Snow Queen. Lewis’ view of Scripture was rather lower than many of us would think proper. He believed in a form of purgatory. And he had inclusivist tendencies – the belief that a person could ‘belong to Christ without knowing it’ (Mere Christianity). Lewis’ views on evolution, though – particularly in later life – are perhaps not as straightforward as Patton seems to suggest.

Why, then, given his questionable-at-points doctrine, is Lewis as popular as he his among those who would – notionally, at least – subscribe to sounder doctrine?

Patton makes his case well, though I suspect a further factor is that Lewis was possessed both of an extraordinarily fine mind and the literary prowess to be able to communicate his thoughts clearly and engagingly to a wide audience. Whether or not one agrees with him, Lewis makes us think. And this, for the discerning reader, is a great benefit. However, the problems inherent in Lewis’ theology are a potential trap for the unwary. I am not therefore quite as ready to endorse Lewis’ ministry as is Patton. The danger of false doctrine is not lessened by an accomplished and affable presentation, nor by the attending presence of a great deal of truth. Quite the contrary.

And therein perhaps lies another small piece of the puzzle with regard to Lewis’ popularity. I wonder whether too many of us are insufficiently discerning, too attracted by the superficial lure of a cool well on scorching summer’s day to be concerned by reports that it is tainted by a mortal threat. For Lewis’ doctrinal foibles are not excused by his undoubted greatness, but magnified. As the writer of Ecclesiastes observes:

Dead flies putrefy the perfumer’s ointment,
And cause it to give off a foul odour;
So does a little folly to one respected for wisdom and honor.
Ecc. 10:1

Thus, if we are to read Lewis, let us exercise diligent discernment – as indeed we should do with even the most excellent of teachers (cf. Acts 17:10–11).

Like us, Lewis was imperfect, a fallen sinner prone to err. Thanks be to God, then, that we have in Jesus Christ a perfect Saviour who has paid the punishment for all our sins, whether those of doctrinal imperfection or of insufficient discernment. Believing this, we stand before God declared righteous in Christ.

Further resources

The Christian Research Institute has a brief, balanced and helpful assessment of Lewis’ theology (PDF).

A year or two ago, I started to listen to a lecture series (available for free on iTunesU) on C.S. Lewis by Dr. Knox Chamblin at Reformed Theological Seminary. Regrettably, I became sidetracked before I learnt very much. I have recently started to listen to it again, and I am thus far very much enjoying Dr. Chamblin’s manifest enthusiasm for his subject.

Update (12:00 GMT Tue 15 November 2011): Pastor McCain has reworked the article somewhat from its original form, but still makes the same salient points.

A week ago, I therefore contacted Present Truth Ministries using the form on their website, asking whether they would confirm Youcef Nadarkhani’s and their own stance on the Trinity. I have not yet received a response to that request. [Present Truth Ministries have subsequently responded. See the update below.] I will update this statement should one be forthcoming. In the meantime, while the currently available evidence is not conclusive, there does seem to be at least room for doubt concerning the orthodoxy of both Youcef Nadarkhani and Present Truth Ministries. I hope that this can be resolved with an affirmation of Trinitarian doctrine from Present Truth Ministries.

Now, the term ‘non-Trinitarian Christian’ is oxymoronic. To worship a non-Trinitarian god is to worship a false god other than the God who reveals Himself in the Bible, and thus to place oneself firmly outside the bounds of Christian orthodoxy. The plight of those holding to such beliefs and suffering for them is therefore doubly tragic.

Finally, please pray for those who consider themselves non-Trinitarian Christians, that their eyes may be opened so that they may call upon the only true God, the Triune God of the Bible – one Godhead in whose unity is three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.

Update: I contacted Present Truth Ministries to inform them that I had written the above, and they have now posted a statement on their blog. They have not clarified their own position, but concerning Youcef they say:

We’ve also been asked on many occasions about Youcef’s beliefs. Based upon my conversations with Iranian church leaders, they agree with the rejection of Sabellianism (Jesus Only) and Arianism. Their belief is that God is three properties in one being, a tri-unity.

Unfortunately, this language falls far short of an affirmation of the historic orthodox Christian formulation of three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity (as chapter II of the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it). The word ‘property’ in no way equates to personhood. If Youcef and Present Truth Ministries wish to be regarded as orthodox in their understanding of the Trinity, I believe they would do well to confess that understanding using the language of a classical Trinitarian formulation such as that of the Westminster Confession of Faith or the Athanasian Creed.

❅

The ASSIST News Service reports that 34 year old pastor Youcef Nadarkhani is under a death sentence in Iran for apostasy. The Iranian Supreme Court has upheld Youcef’s sentence and he could now be executed at any time. The story has also been run by the Christian Telegraph. [Note: there is now some uncertainty over the verdict – see update 2 below.]

The ASSIST News Service quotes Jason DeMars of Present Truth Ministries as saying:

‘The way that this situation is typically handled is that at any time, and without advance notice, they will carry out the death sentence. First, they will ask him to recant, and if he does not, then he will be executed.

‘There is nothing more to be done to help his [Youcef’s] case from within Iran. The only thing that can affect his case now is international pressure.

‘I ask that each of you earnestly pray and follow what God calls you to do. We know that we are called to be faithful unto death and that many are killed for their faith everyday around the world, but as Christians let’s do what we can for Youcef, pray for him and raise our voices against the Iranian regime.’

Present Truth Ministries has a page recounting Youcef’s story. It also provides a guide explaining how you can help and containing extensive media contact details.

Let us remember Youcef in our prayers, and the very many others like him around the world who endure severe persecution for their faith in Christ Jesus, the only One in whom salvation is found.

Update 1: Obama administration surely aware of Youcef’s plight, but will it act? 30 June 2011

CNN covered Youcef’s case on 7 December 2010. The CNN report contains additional background information, including a call by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom upon the Obama administration to demand the unconditional release of Mr. Nadarkhani.

The USCIRF is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission with commissioners appointed by the President and the leadership of both political parties in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

The USCIRF reiterated its appeal to the Obama administration on 25 March 2011.

Update 2: Continuing concern amid verdict uncertainty 5 July 2011

Present Truth Ministries has a brief report on the uncertainty over the verdict of the Iranian Supreme Court on Youcef Nadarkhani’s case.

Christian Today has also just published an article detailing the continuing concerns for Youcef despite reports of an annulled sentence. Christian Today also reports there that Youcef’s lawyer is also now facing lengthy imprisonment, having been convicted on Sunday of ‘actions and propaganda against the Islamic regime’.

Update 3: Written verdict from Supreme Court delivered 12 July 2011

Present Truth Ministries reports that the Iranian Supreme Court’s verdict has now been delivered to Youcef’s attorney. Preliminary information from Iran is that the death sentence has not been annulled, but that the Supreme Court has identified procedural flaws and has asked the lower court to re-examine the case. Keep praying!

Update 4: Translation of Supreme Court verdict 21 July 2011

Present Truth Ministries has published an unofficial translation of the Iranian Supreme Court’s verdict on Youcef Nadarkhani’s case.

Update 5: Case to be re-examined on 25 September 23 September 2011

Present Truth Ministries writes:

Youcef Nadarkhani remains inprisoned in Rasht under the death sentence for apostasy. We have learned that the re-examinaton will take place on September 25, 2011. The local court was ordered by Branch 27 of the Supreme Court to examine specifically whether he was a practicing Muslim between the age of accountability, 15, until he became a Christian at age 19. After they review the case, it will be referred back to the Supreme Court for a final decision.

Behnam Irani remains in prison in Karaj, and recently five other Christians were ordered to report to prison to serve a one year sentence in Shiraz. This is part of a larger campaign by the Iranian government to purge the nation of Christians. Many government paid mullahs have issued statements during sermons encouraging the police to do more to put an end to the Christian movement in Iran.

I would like to invite each of you to join me on September 24th (because of the time difference) for a day of fasting and prayer for brother Youcef and his case. Let’s join forces in this spiritual battle and keep our brother continuously covered in prayer.

Update 6: Pastor Nadarkhani refuses to recant during trial 26 September 2011

Christian Solidarity Worldwide reports that Youcef is standing firm despite demands during court hearings that he recant his Christian faith.

Update 7: Washington Post, Telegraph and New Statesman blogs cover Pastor Nadarkhani’s plight 28 September 2011

The Washington Post, The New Statesman, and The Telegraph, a major UK newspaper, both cover Youcef’s case in their blog sections.

The Telegraph article also links to Christian Solidarity Worldwide’s campaign page, where you can email the Iranian embassy. CSW says that the next 24 hours are critical to stop the execution of Pastor Nadarkhani.

Update 8: Iranian officials interview Pastor Nadarkhani – verdict on 10 October? 6 October 2011

Present Truth Ministries has an article outlining New Developments For Youcef Nadarkhani, which also contains helpful suggestions for your prayers.

Update 9: Verdict delayed again 10 October 2011

Present Truth Ministries writes:

The delivery of Youcef Nadarkhani’s verdict has been delayed again by the court in Gilan province. The reason for the delay, according to his attorney, Mohammed Dadkhah, is because they have referred the case to the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It is very unusual for a court to ask for the legal opinion of the Supreme Leader. Continue to pray and take action for him.

Present Truth Ministries had earlier posted an item with video of Senator Marco Rubio (Florida) speaking on the US Senate Floor about Pastor Nadarkhani’s case.

Our text is Matthew 1:18–25:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After His mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not wanting to make her a public example, was minded to put her away secretly.

But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name JESUS, for He will save His people from their sins.’

So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,’ which is translated, ‘God with us.’

Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

❅

With all the myths of the Christmas season – Father Christmas, Rudolf, Mr Ebenezer Scrooge – it is tempting to think of the birth of Jesus as just one more made-up story among many. The nativity as an incidental artefact of a busy midwinter festival. A diverting scene to amuse the children.

But the birth in Bethlehem of a baby boy called Jesus really happened.

Not a myth, but an actual event in history.

No chance occurrence, but the beginning of the fulfilment of dozens of Biblical prophecies.

700 years before the birth of Christ, God spoke through His prophet Isaiah, further unwrapping the divine plan for salvation. Moved by God, Isaiah prophesied that ‘a virgin shall be with child, and bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel’. (2 Pet. 1:21; Is. 7:14; Matt. 1:23)

St. Matthew explains that ‘Immanuel’ means ‘God With Us’. Of this ‘Immanuel’, Isaiah further spoke:

For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given,
And the government shall be upon His shoulder,
And His name shall be called
Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. (Is. 9:6)

No ordinary child, then – this Christ, this Messiah, this anointed one.

No, here in the grubby nativity manger lies the Mighty God Himself.

The Creator of the universe in helpless human flesh.

Here is Immanuel, ‘God With Us’. Christ Jesus, Son of God and Son of Man. Two natures, human and divine, united in one perfect person.

This child in a manger is the Jesus whose ancestral line we follow throughout the Old Testament.

This is the promised seed of Eve, who has bruised Satan’s head. (Gen. 3:15)

This is the long awaited Messiah, spoken of by Moses. (Deut. 18:15; John 5:46)

This is the offspring of Abraham, to whom God promised ‘In your seed all the nations of the earth shall be blessed’. (Gen. 22:18)

This is the ‘Righteous Branch of King David’, who shall ‘execute judgment and righteousness in the earth’. (Is. 11:1; Jer. 23:5)

This is the one ‘Whose goings forth are from of old, from everlasting’, whom Micah prophesied would come out of Bethlehem. (Micah 5:2)

This babe, then, this Righteous King and Judge, is the one of whom all the Scriptures speak. (Luke 24:27)

❅ ❅

In times past, God spoke by the prophets. In these last days, God has stooped and spoken to us by His own Son. (Heb. 1:1)

Dare we not listen to Him?

❅ ❅ ❅

The angel commanded that Mary’s son be named Jesus, reasoning that ‘He shall save His people from their sins.’ ‘Jesus’ means ‘God saves’, and this Jesus, the Man who is God, shall indeed save His people from their sins.

And how great is our need of salvation from our sins! For the Lord of Heaven and Earth gives us life. He created us to seek, worship, honour and obey Him. He gave us commandments, showing us how to live so that we might bring Him glory. (James 1:17; Rom. 11:36; 1 Cor. 10:31).

But we have all turned away from God, rejecting Him and His Law. (Is. 53:6)

Jesus tells us that the greatest of all His laws is that we love the Lord our God with all our heart, and all our soul, and all our mind and all our strength. (Mar. 12:30)

But we do not.

I do not.

You do not.

I do not fear, love and trust in God with my whole being. I neglect His holy Word. I reject His commandments and substitute my own ideas about how I should live. I worship and serve my own desires, rather than the one true God who made me. Like the Apostle Paul, I do the things I hate – things God hates. (Rom. 7:13–25; 1 John 1:8)

The deeper we gaze into the mirror of God’s holy Law, the more of our sin we see reflected there. We have grievously offended the infinite Mighty God who is perfectly Holy, Righteous and Just. We ‘All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.’ (Rom. 3:16; cf. 1 John 1:8)

John the Baptist speaks of the ‘wrath which is to come’; Jesus speaks of the day of judgment when He Himself shall separate His sheep from the goats, casting the unrighteous into the everlasting fire of hell, prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matt. 3:7; Matt. 25:41; Heb. 9:27)

That is what I deserve. What you deserve. (Rom. 6:23)

❅ ❅ ❅ ❅

But consider again the babe in the manager. The child of God’s eternal decree, foretold by the prophets. God incarnate, born into the world to save sinners such as you and me.

Where we could earn only God’s wrath, this child grew and earned the Father’s good pleasure by his life of perfect obedience to God’s Law.

Where we could die for nothing but our own sin, this Jesus, the spotless, sinless, sacrifice Lamb of God, went willingly to a Roman execution cross. (John 1:29, 10:15, 17, 18; Matt. 3:17)

There, He suffered, shed His blood and died, bearing in His body the punishment for all the sin of all those who trust in Him and call on His name. He paid the penalty in full, satisfying God’s offended holiness and righteousness. The Father showed that He accepted this perfect sacrifice, declaring Jesus to be His Son by raising Him from the dead. (Ps. 22:11-18; Is. 53:5; Acts 2:22–33; Rom. 1:4, 4:23–25, 7:4)

Through the cross, this Prince of Peace thus made peace between a wrathful, holy God and sinful men and women. (Col. 1:20, 3:6; 1 Thess. 1:10; Heb. 10:10; Rev. 6:17; 2 Cor. 5:19)

This is the Good News: Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead, in accordance with the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 15)

The great exchange for those who trust in Christ is this: He takes our sin, and accounts to us His righteousness.

Jesus says of Himself:

‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

He that believeth on Him is not condemned: but He that believeth not is condemned already, because He hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.’

(John 3:16-18, KJV)

This Christmas, hear the voice of God in human flesh. Obey the command Jesus now gives you: ‘Repent, and believe in the Good News.’ (Matt. 9:13; Mark 1:13).

Trust in Him alone, His death for you, His righteous life put to your account. This Christmas, receive from Him the free gift of your sins forgiven. (Rom. 5:15–16, 18)

And if you are already trusting in Christ? Be joyful! Your sins are forgiven! May the Lord grant that we daily renew our repentance and remember that we have an Advocate with the Father, even Jesus Christ the righteous. (1 John 2:1)

Amen.

What a wonderful opportunity to share Law and Gospel! What a perfect occasion to explain the significance of the birth of Christ!

First, the leaflet would say something of the Bad News: that we all have broken the commands given to us by our Creator God – that we have all failed to love Him and one another as we ought. That we have thereby rightfully earned the fierce wrath of a terrifyingly holy, pure and just God. And that we shall all surely one day stand before His throne of judgment, with no hope of reprieve from the eternal fires of hell – no hope, that is, if we are trusting in our own works, experiences or knowledge for our right standing before God.

And then, the glorious Good News: that the holy and just creator God is also a God of love. That He so loved the world that He gave even His only begotten Son – sending Him into the world in human flesh. That this God-Man was in all points tempted as we are, but lived a blameless life, perfectly obedient and pleasing to God. That this Son of God then died in the place of sinners like us, pouring out His blood and bearing in Himself the punishment of all who trust in Him, thereby appeasing the wrath of God toward them. That whoever is trusting in this Christ is declared righteous on His account, and therefore has no need to fear the coming day of judgment. That these shall not perish on that day, but instead live forever!

And, perhaps, room might even be found to mention the fact that forsaking hope in our own merits and instead trusting in Jesus Christ alone is the only means of salvation – for it is only the blood of Christ that is able to wash away our sin and make us clean in the sight of a holy and just God. Christ alone is the Way, the Truth, the Life.

The leaflet wouldn’t have to use these exact words, of course. Wouldn’t even have to go into that much detail. But, surely, the essence of Law and Gospel would be present? – The reason for the birth of this particular Baby.

And, of course, you’d expect there to be a warm and fullsome invitation, extended to everyone to come to the Christmas services and hear more about this Son of God born into the world to save sinners like us.

And it might even be that, at such a service, visitors would hear something not a million miles removed from the content of this short message:

• Christmas Homily: The Birth of Christ as the Fulfilment of Prophecy

You’d be right to expect such things.

But what came through our door was this:

And so I ask this: if the so-called church is so utterly ashamed of the Christ and His Gospel that it has forgotten what the Good News actually is – what it is that we are saved from, who it is that saves us, and how He did so – is it any wonder that the visible church is in full-blown retreat before an advancing culture hostile to Christ?

And yet, I do not despair. For it is Christ who builds His church, and He is able to save to the utmost even we who perpetrate such acts of foolishness as this leaflet. Let us therefore repent, and turn joyfully to our Saviour, come into the world to save even such as us!

Having previously laid the foundations for a correct understanding of Christian discernment, I turn now to the question of orthodoxy.

Over the course of several recent episodes of his Fighting for the Faith programme, Chris Rosebrough has fiercely defended his friend, Dan Kimball. Chris has not merely declared Dan to be ‘a brother in Christ’, and not a heretic, but has repeatedly asserted that Dan ‘preaches, teaches, and confesses, historic orthodoxy’. This has been the source of no minor controversy.

In this article, I first define several terms that are necessary for us to enter meaningfully into the debate, and I endeavour to give them a Biblical basis. I then give voice to several questions that have occurred to me (and I know also to others) as I have heard the debate rage, and particularly as I heard Chris interview Dan.

In asking these questions, I am not so much concerned with Dan Kimball per se, but with the implications that the answers have for how we are to understand what it means to be orthodox. Simply, then, I embrace an opportunity to think aloud about orthodoxy.

The audio of Chris interviewing Dan is available, as is a transcript produced by Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries:

• Audio: Chris Rosebrough interviews Dan Kimball on Fighting for the Faith
• Transcript: Dan Kimball on the Record

Let me be very clear that my aim is not to inflame the controversy, but rather to tame it: first by preparing the ground for us to understand one another, and then by giving both Dan and Chris an opportunity to elucidate their positions clearly, succinctly and publicly. I hope that they will consider serving the church by responding in this way, although they are certainly under no obligation even to listen to anything I have to say, let alone to address it.

‘Today, we have naming of parts’

If we are to understand one another and avoid talking at cross purposes, it is necessary to define our terminology. Unless we do this, we risk erroneously assuming that we have understood what someone else means when they use a particular term.

I shall therefore provide several definitions that I believe are in line with generally accepted usage. In any case, you will at least know with precision what I intend when I use a word:

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’

‘The question is, said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master – that’s all.’

(Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Carroll)

Orthodoxy

The Oxford English Dictionary defines orthodox as meaning ‘right in opinion’. A person therefore adheres to orthodoxy if he maintains right opinion. The word derives from two Greek words: orthos, meaning ‘straight or right’, and doxa, meaning opinion or glory. (The English word ‘doxology’ also derives from the latter; it means ‘the speaking of praise or glory’.)

In his book, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church, Harold O.J. Brown writes (p. 1):

“Orthodoxy” is derived from two Greek words meaning “right” and “honor.” Orthodox faith and orthodox doctrines are those that honor God rightly, something that ought to be desirable and good.

I like Brown’s statement because he gets to the heart of the rightness of orthodoxy: something is right (and therefore orthodox) if it honours God and brings Him glory (or ‘honour’, as Brown puts it).

As our almighty, everlasting and holy God is perfect in all His attributes and ways, any statement made of Him is honouring only if it portrays Him and His work accurately. To portray God other than as He is is de facto to dishonour Him by detracting from His perfection. Since the Scriptures are the sole source we have of authoritative self-revelation from God – that is, they are the only place where we can presently discover with certainty what He is really like – it follows that we honour God by our belief, teaching and confession only if they accord with the Scriptures.

My definition of Christian orthodoxy, then, is this: belief, teaching and confession that is in full accordance with the Scriptures.

In my previous post, I asked the question, What is the activity we call discernment really all about? I argued there that Christian discernment is built upon the foundation of paying close attention to the Great Salvation that is only to be found in Christ. I said this:

Discernment thus begins and ends with Christ. It is always about Christ, His person, His work.

Discernment abides in Christ. It feasts richly on His Word, for in the Scriptures alone do we find authoritative revelation of the person and work of Christ. All the Scriptures speak of Him, and in them we encounter God in human flesh, crucified for our sin and raised for our being declared righteous.

It therefore follows that orthodoxy is especially concerned with belief, teaching and confession concerning the person and work of Christ.

Heresy

Brown (ibid., p. 3) has this to say about heresy:

The word “heresy,” as we have noted, is the English version of the Greek noun hairesis, originally meaning nothing more insidious than “party.” It is used in this neutral sense in Acts 5:17, 15:5, and 26:5. Early in the history of the first Christians, however, “heresy” came to be used to mean a separation or split resulting from a false faith (1 Cor. 11:19; Gal. 5:20). It designated either a doctrine or the party holding the doctrine, a doctrine that was sufficiently intolerable to destroy the unity of the Christian church. In the early church, heresy did not refer to simply any doctrinal disagreement, but to something that seemed to undercut the very basis for Christian existence. Practically speaking, heresy involved the doctrine of God and the doctrine of Christ—later called “special theology” and “Christology”.

Corruptio optimi pessimum est, says the proverb: “the corruption of the best is the worst.” The early Christians felt a measure of tolerance for the pagans, even though they were persecuted by them, for the pagans were ignorant. “This ignorance,” Paul told the Athenians, “God winked at” (Acts 17:30). But Paul did not wink at him who brought “any other Gospel” within the context of the Christian community. “Let him be accursed,” he told the Galatian church (Gal. 1:8).

My definition of heresy is therefore this: belief, teaching or confession contrary to the Scriptures that is sufficiently intolerable as to destroy the unity of the church.

Heresy presupposes orthodoxy. It sets itself up in opposition to the teaching of Scripture and thereby traduces God by painting a false picture of Him and His work. Heresy is divisive, because it comes from within the church and God’s people properly react to it in horror, not wishing to see God’s name defamed and unwilling that anyone should perish through a corruption of the Gospel.

Not withstanding the hazard that heresy poses to the cause of the Gospel, the disunity that it brings is in damnable opposition to the repeated commendation of Christian unity and exhortation towards it found throughout the Scripture (e.g. Ps. 133:1; John 17:21; Acts 1:14; 2:1, 46; 5:12; Rom.15:5; 1 Cor. 11:17–33; Eph. 4:3, 13; Phil. 2:2–4).

Note well that it is the one bringing heresy who is responsible for the division that it causes, not those who oppose him by holding fast to sound doctrine. Thus, Paul instructs Titus that he is to:

‘Reject a divisive [hairetikon (αἱρετικὸν)] man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned.’ (Titus 3:10–11)

Paul had previously told Titus that it is a positive responsibility of every elder (pastor) to be ‘holding fast the faithful word as he has been taught, that he may be able, by sound doctrine, both to exhort and convict those who contradict’ (Titus 1:9).

Indeed, Paul shows that standing firm in the traditions received from the Apostles is the natural implication for all believers of our having been chosen and called by God for salvation and sanctification:

But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God from the beginning chose you for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth, to which He called you by our gospel, for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. (2 Thess. 2:13–15)

Notice how Paul connects the proper giving of thanks to God (that is, expressing the glory and honour due to Him) with our election, calling, salvation and sanctification. Observe that these things are all ‘for the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ’. ‘Therefore,’ Paul says, ‘stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle’. The whole process of salvation being worked in us for the glory of Christ has as its inevitable implication our standing fast in the teaching that we have received from the Apostles.

All believers are thus commanded to cling to orthodoxy, and elders are especially called to ‘exhort and convict those who contradict’. The proper response to heresy is therefore to identify it and warn the person advocating it. If the person persists in his divisiveness after two admonitions, he is to be rejected – he condemns himself by refusing to submit to the truth revealed in Scripture and by spurning its call to stand fast in the faith.

Aberrancy

If orthodoxy is that which is in full accord with Scriptures, and heresy is that which is contrary to it in an intolerable way, it is clear that there is a category between the two: doctrine that is not properly orthodox, but which is not such an egregious offence to the faith as to undermine it fatally and be a cause for division. This lesser category of error is called ‘aberrant’, meaning simply that it is ‘straying from the accepted standard’.

Some use the term heterodox (‘other opinion’, not conforming to that which is orthodox) in a similar way, but that term seems to me be to be wider, potentially encompassing even heresy in a way that aberrancy does not.

Thus, aberrant belief, teaching or confession is that which is not in full accord with the Scriptures, but which does not pose an immediate threat to the unity of the church.

That which is aberrant must of course be corrected, not least because we are commanded ‘to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3). But also because such errors tend to multiply, and aberrant doctrine can very quickly descend into full-blown heresy. But, in and of itself, aberrancy is not so serious as to call for separation between those who are in error and those who are holding fast to the full counsel of the Scriptures.

Orthopraxy and heteropraxy

Whereas orthodoxy is ‘right belief’, orthopraxy is ‘right practice’. There are some who have maintained a clear distinction between the two and, in one sense, this distinction is valid: it is conceivable that someone may act through weakness contrary to his own opinion.

Nevertheless, people draw conclusions about our beliefs not only from our words, but also from our deeds. Our practice is therefore an integral component of our confession. Heteropraxy (‘other practice’, not conforming to orthopraxy) is thus inevitably unorthodox, because it is a failure to confess with our deeds that which is in full accordance with the Scriptures, and it thereby does not give God the right honour that is due to Him. Conversely, the public confession of our faith is something we do, and thus most surely a matter to be considered part of our practice.

At its best, heteropraxy might simply be due to a lack of having thought through the implications of one’s beliefs. At worst, fear of controversy, or of being disliked, could result in a public failure to be clear about the message of Law and Gospel: God’s wrath is upon all mankind because of sin, but Christ died for sinners that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

Such scenarios are not hypothetical – prominent leaders in the visible church have equivocated when under the spotlight. Peter denied Christ. And Paul had to rebuke Peter for not being ‘straightforward about the truth of the gospel’:

But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” (Gal. 2:14–16)

Even as we consider these examples, we see that any attempt to make a distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy is artificial. For a correct understanding of orthodoxy is that which gives right glory and honour to God; it is belief, teaching and confession that is in full accordance with the Scriptures. Orthodoxy and orthopraxy are inseparably intertwined.

If we equivocate such that our confession is unclear about the fate of those not trusting in Christ, we diminish both His person and His work, and we are not orthodox, because we thereby fail in our public profession to give God the glory and honour that are His due.

Bob DeWaay firmly linked practice and confession in an excellent 2005 sermon:

• Holding Fast the Good Confession (MP3, 9.5MB)

(Although Bob DeWaay is sadly no longer pastor of Twin City Fellowship, that fact does not undermine his long and notable record of teaching sound doctrine. This particular sermon is well worth hearing, and I am grateful to Paula Coyle for bringing it to my attention.)

The link between orthodoxy and orthopraxy is especially strong for pastors and teachers in the church. Peter perhaps understood this better than most, having suffered public rebuke from Paul for his separation from the Gentiles. This is what Peter had to say, writing some time after:

The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away. (1 Peter 5:1–4)

Orthodoxy – that which is in full accordance with the Scriptures – thus requires elders (pastors) to be examples to the flock. This is an essential element of their role. The failure of an elder to be a suitable example is thus an implicit denial of orthodoxy. It could hardly be otherwise, for how could any teacher ‘Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority’ (Titus 2:15) if he had undermined his own authority by practising contrary to his confession?

Thus, we see that orthodoxy implies orthopraxy, both as a matter of confession and of requirement. This is especially true for pastors and teachers in the church.

Monergism vs. synergism

Scripture teaches monergism, the doctrine that regeneration (our being born again from above) is the work of God alone, and that we contribute nothing to it. Thus, glory is due to God alone for our salvation, as it is in all things: soli Deo gloria.

Monergism is comforting: if our salvation depends solely upon the will of God and His work, then it can never be imperilled by our sin and frailty. Thus, Paul is able to say boldly (my emphasis):

I thank my God upon every remembrance of you, always in every prayer of mine making request for you all with joy, for your fellowship in the gospel from the first day until now, being confident of this very thing, that He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ (Phil. 1:3–6)

Christ has begun a good work in us; He shall surely complete it. He is both ‘the author and finisher of our faith’, as the writer to the Hebrews puts it, ‘who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross’ (Heb. 12:2).

Synergism is the opposite of monergism. Synergism is the counter-Biblical doctrine that the human will cooperates with God in the work of regeneration.

Monergism asserts that God will save whomsoever He wishes; synergism claims that God does not violate man’s free will by saving someone who has not first chosen God. Monergism’s view of salvation is centred upon the will of God; synergism sees salvation as dependent upon the will of the creature.

It is essential to realize that monergism does not teach that God does violence to our wills in the work of regeneration. Rather, it teaches that the Holy Spirit works within us to change our wills, such that we go from a determined opposition to the Gospel, to willing and joyful faith in Christ.

In his sermon, God’s Will and Man’s Will (a sermon whose introduction, incidentally, has more than a passing relevance to the present controversy), C. H. Spurgeon put it like this:

But we do hold and teach that though the will of man is not ignored, and men are not saved against their wills, that the work of the Spirit, which is the effect of the will of God, is to change the human will, and so make men willing in the day of God’s power, working in them to will to do of his own good pleasure.

St. John states plainly that, even though it is those who receive Christ who are saved, the underlying cause of their regeneration is ultimately not the will of man, but that of God:

But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. (John 1:12–13)

Jesus Himself testifies similarly:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. (John 6:44)

The word translated ‘draws’ there in Greek is helkuse (ἑλκύσῃ). It has the sense of moving ‘an object from one area to another in a pulling motion, draw[ing], with implication that the object being moved is incapable of propelling itself or in the case of persons is unwilling to do so voluntarily, in either case with implication of exertion on the part of the mover’ (BDAG). Thus, Jesus is saying here that no one comes to Him voluntarily, but the Father must instead drag each person to Himself such that he who was initially unwilling to come of his own accord at the last receives Christ gladly.

This is entirely consistent with Paul’s teaching that, until the Holy Spirit regenerates us, we are as a result of the Fall dead in our sin and enslaved to it – utterly unable and unwilling even to seek God. In a meticulously constructed argument showing that everyone is confined under sin and condemned by the Law (Rom. 1:18–3:20), Paul quotes Psalms 14 and 53:

There is none righteous, no, not one;
There is none who understands;
There is none who seeks after God.
They have all turned aside;
They have together become unprofitable;
There is none who does good, no, not one.

(Rom. 3:10–12)

Except the Father draw someone by the work of the Holy Spirit, no one is righteous (having a right standing before God), no one understands (believes rightly), no one seeks after God, no one does good. Not even one single person, excepting Christ Himself. This is why Paul says:

For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (1 Cor. 1:22–25)

To the natural, fallen human mind, the Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead is either a stumbling block or foolishness. Such a mind unaided by the Holy Spirit is therefore unable either to understand or accept the message. It has no more power to adopt right belief than a person dead at the bottom of well has to make an effort to climb out. Paul writes (my emphasis):

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

(Eph. 2:1–10)

We were dead in our sins and unable to seek God, but now we have been made alive in Christ and receive Him willingly.

Our being ‘saved through faith’ is by grace alone – that is, by the unmerited favour of God towards us on account of Christ. In the Greek, our being ‘saved’ is passive; it is something done to us, not by us. Our salvation by grace through faith is the gift of God, and most certainly not the result of anything that we do – no, not even the act of choosing right belief – because, as Paul makes so clear, we were dead in our sins and thus utterly unable to understand or seek after God. We are therefore ‘His workmanship’, not our own, ‘created in Christ Jesus for good works’.

How then did we come to faith? Again, Paul is clear: ‘faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.’ (Rom. 10:14)

The Holy Spirit works repentance and faith in those He is effectually calling by ‘the hearing of the word of God’. Thus, the selfsame Gospel message that is a stumbling block and foolishness to natural minds becomes the very power of God for salvation to those who are being saved by Him. When we put the earlier quote from 1 Cor. 1 into context, this becomes absolutely clear:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”

Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

(1 Cor. 1:18–25)

There we see clearly that we can never by knowledge come to know God: ‘For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God’. God in his wisdom has ordered things such that no one comes to faith through wisdom – or, we might say, through adopting right belief. Rather, ‘it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe’.

R. C. H. Lenski rightly comments on this passage:

The world of men failed completely in regard to the one and supreme thing it needed: it did not know God. The aorist οὑκ ἔγνω [‘not know’] states the whole tragic [situation] as a fact. Ἔγνω [‘know’] does not refer to mere intellectual knowledge but to the genuine realization which grips, holds, and dominates the entire person. Men never attained to this real knowledge of God; they did not know him. When he speaks to them in the gospel even today, they laugh; they do not think that it is God speaking. See John 8:19 regarding the Jews with reference to this point; even though they talked about God and boasted about him they did not know him. (The interpretation of St. Paul’s First and Second epistle to the Corinthians, p. 59)

Thus, we are not saved by our choosing to adopt right belief. The fallen mind, dead in sin, has neither the will nor the ability to do that.

Recall Ezekiel’s vision of the valley of dry bones in Ezekiel 37. The bones had no power in themselves, but the word of God proclaimed to them caused them to be covered with sinews, flesh and skin. As Ezekiel prophesied (37:9) to the Breath (ruach, the same word as for ‘spirit’) to come from the four winds and breathe on the slain that they may live, so it is with our salvation: the Holy Spirit blows wherever He wishes, breathing life into everyone who is born of Him (John 3:5–8).

Life always comes from the breath of God, as it did in the very beginning when ‘the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being’ (Gen. 2:7). It is surely no coincidence that the life-giving Scriptures are themselves described in 2 Tim. 3:16 as having been given by the ‘out-breathing of God’ (theopneustos, θεόπνευστος).

We are saved, then, because the Holy Spirit has so worked in us by the hearing of the word of God as to regenerate us, convict us of our sin, and bring us to repentance and trust in Christ for the forgiveness of our sin and our right standing before the Father.

Right belief and faith in Christ is thus the result of the Holy Spirit’s work of regeneration, not its cause.

Paul puts it to Titus like this (my emphasis):

But when the kindness and the love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior, that having been justified by His grace we should become heirs according to the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:4–7)

Christian brother or sister

What does it mean to call someone a brother (or a sister) in Christ? Does it mean that we believe him to hold fully orthodox doctrine, or at least some subset of orthodox doctrine that is considered essential to the faith?

We have already seen that it is not by anything that we do that we are saved. Rather, God has elected us in Christ, predestined us to be conformed to the image of His Son, called us through the hearing of the Gospel, regenerated us, given us faith and repentance, declared us righteous, sanctified us, and, one day, will even glorify us (Rom. 8:29–30). All this is His work, done for His own glory.

Since it is not by our adopting right belief that we are saved – and, indeed, nothing at all that we do – but rather the work of God alone ‘through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit’, it follows that someone could be regenerate without having a proper grasp of orthodox doctrine. This is simply a question of arranging the cart and the horse in an appropriate order: right belief flows from our having been regenerated; right belief is not the cause of regeneration.

Consider John the Baptist in his mother’s womb:

‘And it happened, when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, that the babe leaped in her womb; and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.’ (Luke 1:41)

How is it that John in the womb recognized Mary (and most likely, the presence of the baby Jesus within her)? Well, Luke helpfully tells us just a few verses earlier, by recording the angel’s words to Zacharias:

‘But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zacharias, for your prayer is heard; and your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall call his name John. And you will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth. For he will be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb. And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, ‘to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,’ and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”’ (Luke 1:13–17)

We see then that John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit from His mother’s womb, and thus enabled to recognize the presence of the incarnate Christ.

John – filled with the Spirit as he was – was clearly regenerate even before he was born (cf. Acts 10:47) . And yet, his cognitive abilities could hardly then have been so sufficiently developed as for him to have been able to give mental assent to any doctrines at all, let alone the core doctrines of the faith.

This example should encourage us: saving faith is a gift of God, and does not depend upon anything that we do – not even our giving of mental assent to particular doctrines. God may bestow saving faith upon anyone He chooses, from the youngest unborn child to the oldest man. Salvation is God’s work, and His alone.

I labour this point because it would be a grave mistake to equate having orthodox beliefs as being synonymous with salvation. Saving faith can be bestowed upon even those without developed mental facilities. Again, this is good news: as well as the youngest child, even a severely mentally disabled person can be saved – no one is outside God’s saving reach, if He so wills to save. (The corollary shows the full horror of synergism: infants and the severely mentally impaired would all be lost if our salvation were to depend upon our making a first move towards God. Of course, synergists invent schemes to avoid this implication, but they do so without Biblical support.)

Now, of course, in the normal course of events, the good fruit of the good tree that is the saved person will include right belief. But that comes through nurture and good teaching that immerses the disciple in the Scriptures. Good trees, well tended, bear good fruit. Jesus says, ‘My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me’ (John 10:27), and we have Christ’s voice recorded for us throughout the Scriptures. I say again, therefore: the fullness of right belief follows regeneration, not vice versa.

The implication of all of this is that someone might have been regenerated by the Holy Spirit, having heard the Gospel, and yet not be sufficiently instructed in the Scriptures so as to believe, teach and confess full orthodoxy.

Indeed, very many people in the visible church today erroneously believe that they made a first step of faith towards God, and that He then responded to this by regenerating them. This back-to-front belief is very far from orthodox, as we have already seen, yet nevertheless some of the people who hold it bear all the signs of a genuine saving faith. Far be it from us to judge their standing before the almighty and everlasting God. Their salvation is His work, and His alone to judge.

Thus, to recognize someone as a brother or sister in the Lord is emphatically not the same as asserting that he or she has right belief, even concerning major doctrines of the faith. (Though that statement should not to be understood as saying anything regarding the salvation of one who expressly rejects core doctrines concerning the person and work of Christ.)

Orthodoxy is narrow

Having defined our terms, we may now make a further observation: historic Christian orthodoxy is narrow. It has been from the very beginning, it has been throughout Church history, and it shall continue to be.

As an example, consider a passage that contains what is perhaps the most famous verse in the New Testament. Jesus explains the Gospel to Nicodemus:

¹⁰Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel, and do not know these things? ¹¹Most assuredly, I say to you, We speak what We know and testify what We have seen, and you do not receive Our witness. ¹²If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? ¹³No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven. ¹⁴And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, ¹⁵that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. ¹⁶For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. ¹⁷For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.

¹⁸“He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. ¹⁹And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. ²⁰For everyone practising evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. ²¹But he who does the truth comes to the light, that his deeds may be clearly seen, that they have been done in God.”

(John 3:10–21)

In v. 16, we have an affirmation that whoever believes (has trust in) Christ shall not perish but have everlasting life. Christ was not born into the world to condemn it, but that through Him it might be saved.

This is wonderful news.

And yet, if we were to proclaim only that message, we would be doing violence to the whole counsel of God and to the Gospel. We would be leaving people ignorant of their certain need for Christ, and thereby risking their eternal destiny.

How so?

Because asserting that faith in Christ saves does not in itself proclaim the exclusivity of Christ. Even a Hindu might be willing to accept that Christ saves – after all, what would accepting one more god among many be to him? Ask him, however, to forsake all his other gods for Christ alone, and you will soon discover the narrowness of orthodoxy.

No, such a truncated Gospel neglects to warn people that, unless they believe in Christ, they shall perish. Thus, if our proclamation contains only the message that Jesus saves, the Gospel is emasculated – robbed of its urgency and made impotent. We must also tell people that without Christ they will surely perish in the face of the fierce wrath of God for their sin – recall Eph. 2:3, where we saw that even we ourselves were ‘by nature children of wrath’.

To be orthodox, we have therefore to proclaim the whole counsel of Scripture. We have to believe, teach and confess not only John 3:16–18a, but also v. 18b: ‘but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.’

Orthodoxy and basic kindness constrain us to warn people of the coming day of judgment for their sin, for we love them enough to tell them the truth, earnestly hoping that they might turn in repentance and receive the forgiveness of sins. This is exactly what Paul did for the Athenians at the Areopagus:

“Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.” (Acts 17:30–31)

The mix of reactions Paul encountered to his proclamation of Law and Gospel is typical. Some mock, others wish to hear more, and some come to faith:

And when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, while others said, “We will hear you again on this matter.” So Paul departed from among them. However, some men joined him and believed, among them Dionysius the Areopagite, a woman named Damaris, and others with them. (Acts 17:32–34)

Orthodoxy is exclusive. Orthodoxy is narrow. Orthodoxy lovingly warns of the exclusion from salvation of those who have not been regenerated and granted a saving faith in the person and work of Christ. The is why Jesus says:

Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it. (Matt. 7:13–14)

He even couples this exhortation with a warning against those who would speak falsely in God’s name things that He has not said:

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them. (Matt. 7:15–20)

It is orthodoxy’s insistence on exclusivity and narrowness – its rejection of any other way to God except faith in Christ – that is anathema to our postmodern culture. That culture would grant us Christ as a way to salvation, but not the way.

A failure to profess boldly and clearly to our own generation the narrowness of orthodoxy and the exclusivity of Christ as the only Way, Truth and Life is thus a dismal failure to love people by sharing with them the whole counsel of God, such that they might come to repentance and receive forgiveness in Christ.

Questions of orthodoxy

I have been listening to every episode of Chris Rosebrough’s Fighting for the Faith programme since the premier back in July 2007. From everything I have heard, I have no doubt that Chris is driven by a desire to be faithful to the Scriptures and to reach out to the lost with the true Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead.

Until two weeks ago, I knew relatively little of Dan Kimball. I owned only one of his books, The Emerging Church: Vintage Christianity for New Generations. I was unhappy with some of its content, and in particular with some of its endorsements, but Dan was not sufficiently on my radar for me to have taken steps to contact him and ask him about it.

I was therefore pleased to hear Chris tell us all that, having spent some time with Dan, he regarded Dan as a brother in Christ who was genuinely seeking to be faithful to the Scriptures. It is immensely encouraging whenever anyone professes this desire, and the prospect of a fruitful engagement with a such a person is enticing.

Yet, given Dan’s apparent track record with the books that he has published, I maintained reservations. Having heard Chris interview Dan, I have to say that he seemed pleasant and likeable, and I have no reason to doubt his willingness to discuss what he believes. However, I was both puzzled and more than a little perturbed by Chris’ apparent ringing endorsement of Dan’s orthodoxy, given what Dan said – and didn’t say – in the interview.

The most direct way to clear up my puzzlement would seem to be by asking a few questions of Chris and Dan. Since I know I am not alone in desiring clarity on the issues I raise, I ask these questions in public. Chris and Dan both thereby have an opportunity, if they wish, to respond clearly, succinctly and publicly, via whatever channels they see fit.

A. On monergism

Semi-pelagianism is the belief that man and God cooperate in the work of salvation: man makes a beginning of his faith through a free act of will, and God then reciprocates by increasing and guarding that faith, completing the work of salvation. Semi-pelagianism is thus synergistic; it stands as a rejection of monergism.

The majority of evangelicalism undoubtedly holds to semi-pelagianism, believing that we have first to take a step of faith toward God (‘make a decision for Christ’), and that God will then respond by saving us.

Chris Rosebrough is firmly on record as defining historic Christian orthodoxy as expressly rejecting semi-pelagianism. Chris believes, and it will be clear from what I have written above that I agree, that semi-pelagianism is emphatically not orthodox. It is not what the Scriptures teach about our salvation, and it is not what the early Church believed.

Indeed, not only was semi-pelagianism regarded as non-orthodox, it was actually pronounced to be heresy by the Second Council of Orange in 529. I know that Chris agrees with this Council, because he wrote on this very subject back in June this year:

• Semipelagianism Was Declared a Heresy in 529 A.D.

Why do I raise semi-pelagianism? Because I heard Dan say this during the interview:

‘There is [sic] those that God has elected, and that’s what the Scriptures teach. And it seems like there’s also Scriptures that teach there is human choice as well. And I loved the book that Norman Geisler wrote…’

Believing that God elects but that humans also have choice in matters of salvation is, surely, the very essence of semi-pelagianism, and this is exactly what Chris said in his article on the Second Council of Orange:

The church in the United States has been ooozing with the heresy known as Semipelagianism since the time of Finney and the frontier revivalists. What few in the church understand is that Semipelagianism is a heresy that misdiagnoses man’s sinful condition and incorrectly puts the responsibility of man’s conversion upon himself. This is not what the scriptures teach at all and what is at stake is the Gospel itself and the salvation of those who have been wrongly taught that they are saved by their decision to follow Christ.

Although Dan couldn’t remember the name of Norman L. Geisler’s book in his interview, the one he was referring to was Chosen but Free. That book is a full-blown assault on monergism (specifically Calvinism – although certainly not all monergists are Calvinists, as is shown by Confessional Lutheranism). Geisler launches a blistering attack on the traditional understanding of total depravity (original sin), unconditional election (some being chosen by God for salvation according to His own good pleasure, not upon the basis of foreseen faith), and the triumph of God’s grace in the elect – all foundational to monergism. Apologist James White even went to the trouble of writing a book, The Potter’s Freedom, to refute Geisler. This is what White’s website says about The Potter’s Freedom:

Geisler’s Chosen but Free sparked a firestorm of controversy when he labeled Calvinism “theologically inconsistent, philosophically insufficient, and morally repugnant.” White steps into the breach with his cogent response. His systematic refutation of Geisler’s argument will help you understand what the Reformed faith really teaches about divine election and how Reformed thought conforms to the Gospel.

With regard to the third edition of Chosen But Free, White said in August that it teaches that ‘evangelical synergism is now the “balanced view”’.

Perhaps White has misunderstood Geisler? But no, here is Michael Horton, Professor of Theology and Apologetics at Westminster Seminary, writing on Sola Gratia: Our Only Method (my emphasis):

On the eve of the Reformation a number of church leaders, including bishops and archbishops, had been complaining of creeping Pelagianism (a heresy that denies original sin and the absolute need for grace). Nevertheless, that heresy was never tolerated in its full expression. However, today it is tolerated and even promoted in liberal Protestantism generally, and even in many evangelical circles.

In Pelagianism, Adam’s sin is not imputed to us, nor is Christ’s righteousness. Adam is a bad example, not the representative in whom we stand guilty. Similarly, Christ is a good example, not the representative in whom we stand righteous. How much of our preaching centers on following Christ–as important as that is–rather than on his person and work? How often do we hear about his work in us compared to his work for us?

Charles Finney, the revivalist of the last century, is a patron saint for most evangelicals. And yet, he denied original sin, the substitutionary atonement, justification, and the need for regeneration by the Holy Spirit. In short, Finney was a Pelagian. This belief in human nature, so prominent in the Enlightenment, wrecked the evangelical doctrine of grace among the older evangelical Protestant denominations (now called “mainline”), and we see where that has taken them. And yet, conservative evangelicals are heading down the same path and have had this human-centered, works-centered emphasis for some time.

The statistics bear us out here, unfortunately, and again the leaders help substantiate the error. Norman Geisler writes, “God would save all men if he could. He will save the greatest number actually achievable without violating their free will.”

Geisler’s statement quoted there is nothing other than an explicit rejection of monergism.

We thus seem to have a plain declaration from Dan that he embraces the idea that ‘humans have a choice’ in matters of salvation – a view that Chris has himself previously labelled heresy – along with an enthusiastic declaration of love for a book that outright rejects the historic Reformation understanding of unconditional election and total depravity, and which instead advocates an evangelical synergism dressed-up in the clothes of Reformation theology.

Now, I am not painting Dan’s position on election as being any worse than that of mainstream evangelicalism, for I can discern no difference between the two. But Chris does not consider evangelical synergism to be remotely orthodox, and has in fact agreed with the Church’s having called that belief heresy in 529. Thus, there appears to be a disconnect between Chris’ view on synergism on the one hand, and his vigorous affirmation of Dan’s orthodoxy on the other.

My concern here is that, if we point to what Dan has said on the show and say that it is orthodox, we concede monergism, and with it, the very foundation of Reformation theology – which, of course, is nothing less than the theology of the historic orthodox universal Church. As Chris rightly said in his article on the Second Council of Orange, ‘what is at stake is the Gospel itself and the salvation of those who have been wrongly taught that they are saved by their decision to follow Christ.’ I wholeheartedly agree with what Chris wrote there.

I therefore ask the following questions:

A1. Chris, given what Dan stated during your interview, do you acknowledge the apparent inconsistency between your affirmation that the universal Church declared semi-pelagianism to be heresy, and your affirmation that Dan ‘preaches, teaches, and confesses, historic orthodoxy’?

A2. If so, are you willing to clarify or nuance what you mean when you say that Dan ‘preaches, teaches, and confesses, historic orthodoxy’?

A3. Dan, given that you appeared desirous to agree with Chris’ affirmation of your orthodoxy, and given that you have now seen that the universal Church expressly rejected semi-pelagianism in 529, will you affirm in accordance with Scripture and historic orthodoxy that salvation is the work of God alone, and that this fact gives us great confidence and comfort as to the security of our salvation?

B. On the doctrine of hell

Dan declared clearly in the interview that he believed in hell. He started well:

Yeah. Um, we—I mean—this is another thing. I-it’s so funny to read things. We preach on Hell, a sermon about every single year in our church. I was just down at the Outreach convention in San Diego. My whole topic was teaching emerging generations about Hell. Last night in our own church, I’s reading the horrific, uh, sounding verses, y’ know, about judgment, in, uh, 2 Thessalonians with—y’know, about being “shut out” from the presence of, of, y’know—tha-He will punish those that do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus and they’ll punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His might. Y’know, an’ I was pleading with our church last night. I’m like, “These are difficult things to hear and say, but we have t”—I-um-I am, I’m passionate to talk about it.

Had he stopped there, I’d not have thought further on this. But Dan continued:

But then I’d deconstruct—an’ this is important because someone will say, “What Hell are you talking about?” Y’know, um, I believe we need to deconstruct, you know, Dante’s Inferno and the images of Hell that have come up through artistic poetry and not based out of Scripture.

Or that we ha—because most Americans today, when they say, “Hell,” they’re thinkin’ of a cartoon sort of Devil with horns, and that, y’know, he runs Hell. Ah, and so I think what our job is, is to also deconstruct what Hell is culturally; an’ y’know, Satan is not ruling Hell, he would be in Hell. Hell was created for, for Satan and his angels. So I think we have ta teach correctly what it would be, but then deconstruct what the average American may think of it. And so, I’m passionate about that because I am so grateful that I am saved from Hell; and that compels me to wanna share that with other people.

I don’t use Hell as my driving force of evangelism, you don’t see th—I don’t think—the-there’s judgment talked about in Scripture a lot; y’know, but I, ah, we speak about it, we teach about it, an’ I—we have to teach about it; so.

I agree with Dan entirely that cartoon images and other unbiblical views of hell are unhelpful – he makes an excellent point. But I wasn’t sure from all this whether he personally believed that hell was a place of eternal torment. Nothing he said in the interview clarified that for me, and Chris regrettably did not press him on the topic.

I therefore searched for anything Dan might have said online concerning hell, and came across this article (which Chris also mentioned at the end of the interview):

• Teaching the Truth About Hell

As I read, I agreed with much of what Dan had to say there. And then I hit this:

I try to approach this topic humbly and with mystery but also teach it is a reality. I specifically state that only God knows someone’s eternal destiny. We walk through various Scriptures explaining that it is appointed for people to die and that everyone will face judgment (Heb. 9:27). We also look at the differences in judgment between a Christian and non-Christian. I share that much of what hell will be like is a mystery, but that we can know it is eternal, a place of regret, etc. I do share that there are varying views about hell among Christians, including annihilation (when people cease to exist and don’t experience eternal suffering).

I am pleased that Dan approaches this topic humbly and teachably – he sets us a good example. However, I am left unclear as to what Dan believes. Yes, I can see that he teaches various views on hell – including, presumably, the view that is a fiery place of eternal punishment and torment where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. But he also teaches the annihilationist view, and nowhere either in his interview or in that article did I hear or see Dan actually state which view he holds. It is also not at all clear from what he writes whether he takes a firm position in his teaching on which view of hell is correct.

I was also astonished to see Dan write that hell is ‘eternal, a place of regret, etc.’ While true, ‘a place of regret’ is irrefutably an astonishingly soft way of describing the hell depicted in the Bible.

Having failed to ascertain Dan’s actual belief about hell either from Dan’s interview or his article on that topic, I turned to the Lausanne Covenant, which is the statement of faith that Dan has adopted.

This too was of little help in clarifying Dan’s view of hell, because it does not actually mention the word. The closest it comes to the concept is this:

All men and women are perishing because of sin, but God loves everyone, not wishing that any should perish but that all should repent. Yet those who reject Christ repudiate the joy of salvation and condemn themselves to eternal separation from God.

This statement is extremely problematic. Can it be orthodox to declare only that those who (perhaps actively) reject Christ are condemned, as opposed to all those who are not trusting in Christ for the forgiveness of their sins and their right standing before God, as we hear from the very mouth of Jesus is the true position? And is it orthodox to define the unsaved’s eternal state weakly as ‘eternal separation from God’ (a prospect that I suspect many would welcome), rather than as punishment in the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels?

I wonder whether such statements as these show love for the lost by revealing to them the full horror of the fate of those who do not trust in Christ, that they might repent and receive the forgiveness of their sins through the Gospel?

God’s kindness leads us to repentance – and part of the outworking of that kindness is a revelation of the terrible destiny of those who, on the final day of judgment, are not clothed with the righteousness of Christ.

I therefore have the following questions, all for Dan except the first:

B1. Chris, do you believe the Lausanne Covenant falls short of orthodoxy in its failure to show love for the lost by declaring clearly the true severity of hell?

B2. Dan, which view of hell, if any, do you believe, teach and confess as being correct? Do you teach that the others are incorrect and contrary to Scripture?

B3. In view of the fact that God has kindly revealed to us as a warning the severity of hell as a place of eternal punishment, such that we might flee from the wrath to come into the arms of a loving Saviour, and given that the eternal punishment of the lost features so prominently in Jesus’ teaching in the gospels, will you reconsider your non-use of hell as a driving force for evangelization?

B4. Do you affirm that all those without a saving faith in Christ will be punished eternally in hell, not merely those who expressly reject the Good News of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead?

B5. For clarity, will you confirm that you believe, teach and confess that, at the least, 1 Cor. 6:9–11 teaches: (i) no one will inherit the kingdom of God if he is affirming in open rebellion to Scripture that his sin is a gift from God, and is therefore unrepentantly living a lifestyle of sexual immorality, idolatry, adultery, homosexual practice, thievery, covetousness, drunkenness, abusiveness or extortion; (ii) that the Body of Christ contains many who have been saved out of such sin, having rejected it in obedience to Christ, being washed, sanctified and justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Holy Spirit?

B6. As a church leader, do you lovingly warn those who look to you who are engaging unrepentantly in a lifestyle of such sin that they are in danger of receiving God’s eternal condemnation in hell (thus using God’s Law for its proper purpose of convicting us of our sin), pleading urgently with them that they might repent and turn to Christ for the forgiveness of all their sin?

C. On the dangers of mysticism

In the interview, Dan clearly distanced himself from mysticism and mystical practices. He explained (a little indignantly) that, although he used terms such as lectio divina in his books, his own understanding of those practices when he wrote his books did not in any way involve mysticism or altered states of consciousness.

In Dan’s 2003 book, The Emerging Church (which is still for sale), a copy of which I have open in front of me as I write, Dan cites prominent teachers of mysticism Dallas Willard (from at least three of Willard’s books, on pp. 203, 216, 223, 258), Gary Thomas (p. 221), and Henri Nouwen (pp. 233, 257). Of Willard’s The Divine Conspiracy: Rediscovering Our Hidden Life in God, Dan writes (p. 258):

Without a doubt, the books that have had the most influence on my thinking on discipleship and spiritual formation for the emerging church are this one and [Renovation of the Heart: Putting on the Character of Christ] by Dallas Willard.

Anyone reading Dan’s book would also see an un-nuanced endorsement of lectio divina (p. 223), ‘practicing silence’ (p. 223), ‘practicing the presence through prayer’ (p. 216), and ‘ancient disciplines’ (pp. 215, 223, 258). No definitions of these terms are given to steer the reader away from mystical practices.

Now, to be fair, Dan also makes sound, Biblical statements, such as this one (p. 216):

‘The Holy Spirit is the one who changes, grows, and sanctifies us (Rom. 6–8)

But his apparent endorsement of extra-Biblical spiritual disciplines as some of the means by which the Holy Spirit works (p. 216) remains troubling. And it doesn’t help that, despite his intentions to the contrary, he sounds like so many other advocates of spiritual formation through spiritual disciplines (p. 217):

So how can we create systems for discipleship that do not smack of modern business or academic structures and don’t feel programmed but rather embrace the mystery, awe, and wonder of God’s transforming work? One thing we can do is simply rename the classes to emphasize the spiritual aspect and to reflect values of emerging culture. Mosaic church in Los Angeles uses names like River to describe a spiritual formation retreat that “is an immersion of your sense, emotions, body and intellect as we quest to explore our connection to God.” They have another retreat called Snow, which is a “quest for forgiveness.” Cedar Ridge Community Church in Maryland has spiritual formation classes named Soul Findings, Journey, and Kindle.

Titles which sound more spiritual as well as classes which encompass depth with an organic approach fit much better in the fluidity of the emerging culture. But titles are only the packaging; we need to think through how to encourage spiritual formation through a holistic approach of mind, heart, senses and bodies. We can’t just change the name and then just keep dispersing information. We need to change how we approach spiritual formation.

The question there that Dan begins by asking is a good one. But his answer could have been written by any proponent of mysticism, and section titles such as ‘Restoring the ancient disciplines to create vintage Christians’ (p. 223) don’t help to counter the impression this gives. If people read Dan’s books and come away with the idea that he is an advocate of extra-Biblical mystical practices, I therefore wonder whether that is really anyone’s fault but his own.

Apprising Ministries similarly reports that Dan’s 2004 book Emerging Worship (co-authored with David Crowder and Sally Morgenthaler, and also still for sale) recommends (under the heading of ‘Helpful books’) Tony Jones’ Soul Shaper: Exploring Spirituality and Contemplative Practices in Youth Ministry. Ken Silva comments:

In Soul Shaper Tony Jones advocates some sixteen “ancient-future” spiritual tools such as The Jesus Prayer, Lectio Divina, Silence and Solitude, Stations of the Cross, Centering Prayer, and the Labyrinth. Here Jones begins defining his postmodern approach to youth ministry by combining aspects of what he sees as common spirituality in Evangelicalism, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions along with eastern religious practices gleaned from Buddhism and Hinduism. These soul shaping “disciplines” will later become even more developed in his next book The Sacred Way.

My (rather obvious) questions for Dan are therefore:

C1. Would you accept that, even though you did not ever intend to commend mysticism by your named endorsement of certain practices, someone reading your books might likely seek to discover more about those practices and thereby become involved with mysticism?

C2. Would you accept that writers such as Dallas Willard, Gary Thomas, Henri Nouwen and Tony Jones – all of whom you have favourably cited or recommended in your books, do teach mysticism – and that your implied or explicit endorsement of them might lead someone reading your books also to read their works, and thereby to become involved in mystical practices?

C3. Will you acknowledge the dangers of the extra-Biblical spiritual disciplines advocated by these writers?

C4. Do you accept that, as a prominent Christian leader, your endorsement carries weight and that you therefore have a God-given responsibility to be sure of what and whom you endorse before you promote them?

C5. Will you therefore agree that your unwitting endorsement of these practices and the writers who advocate them poses a clear and serious spiritual danger to your readers?

C6. If so, would you also agree that it follows that you now have an urgent duty to: (i) until such time as they can be revised, withdraw from sale any books of yours that might be understood to imply endorsement of any mystical practices, or of authors advocating such practices; (ii) publish a clear statement on your website naming those teachers and writers whom you can no longer endorse because they promote potentially dangerous extra-biblical spiritual practices, in that statement also identifying those practices and warning against them?

Final thoughts

There are many other questions that could be raised, but these were those that seemed most pressing to me – and also most useful in helping us to think about the outworking of what it means to be truly orthodox. I pray that, if the discussion continues, it will do so in a spirit of kindness and gentleness, as we bear with one another in love. For we who trust in Christ are all sinners, saved by grace.

May we all ‘come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ’ (Eph. 4:13). And as we endeavour to speak the truth to one another in love, may all our words resound to the glory of God through the Gospel of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Further reading

• Reformation Essentials – Five Pillars of the Reformation by Michael Horton
• Dan Kimball Gives A Statement
• The Power of the Gospel

[Minor edits made 7:10 pm GMT on 26 November 2010 in the light of Jason’s comments.]

Even as I mention that word, a multitude of Bible passages leaps into our minds: Ezekiel the watchman (Ezek. 3; 33); Jesus warning of the ‘false christs and false prophets’ that will arise (Matt. 24); the Jews at Berea who ‘searched the Scriptures daily’ to find out whether Paul was teaching them the truth (Acts 17); Paul telling the Thessalonians to ‘test all things; hold fast what is good’ (1 Thess. 5) and instructing Titus to ‘reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition’ (Titus 3); Peter warning about false teachers ‘who will secretly bring in destructive heresies’ (2 Peter 2). And many, many more – all helpful to us in various ways.

Paul tells the Philippians that he prays this for them:

…that your love may abound still more and more in knowledge and all discernment, that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. (Phil. 1:9–11)

The immediate context there gives us a very good idea of what Paul means by ‘discernment’. Notice that he couples discernment with knowledge. The two are clearly related in some way.

Paul prays that the Philippians will abound ever increasingly in both these things, with the result that they ‘may approve the things that are excellent’ and ‘be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God’.

How we need this kind of knowledge and discernment! May the Lord grant it also to us in abundance, that we might too be found sincere and without offense until He comes again, being filled with the fruits of righteousness by Christ.

But we still haven’t answered our question: what is discernment?

Let us reach for a passage that is perhaps not always forefront in our minds when we think about discernment and what it means to be discerning. You know it well:

‘God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.’ (Hebrews 1:1–4)

I wish to juxtapose that with a few verses from a little further on in the same text. The ‘Therefore’ with which this next passage starts follows directly on from the premise stated in the verses above:

‘Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away. For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward, how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him, God also bearing witness both with signs and wonders, with various miracles, and gifts of the Holy Spirit, according to His own will?’ (Hebrews 2:1–4)

God has spoken to us by the prophets and, in these last days, by His glorious Son. The same Son who has purged our sins and who now sits at the right hand of the Majesty on high. ‘Therefore, we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard’, as the ESV puts it.

Why?

Lest we drift away, because we shall not escape if we neglect so great a salvation. A salvation that ‘at the first began to be spoken by the Lord’ and was confirmed by those who heard Him, with God Himself bearing witness with signs, wonders, miracles and gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Is not true discernment this very activity of paying close attention to what we have heard about a Great Salvation?

A salvation proclaimed by Christ, undertaken for Christ, accomplished by Christ on the cross. A salvation we hear spoken of in the Scriptures by the Holy Spirit through the prophets and Apostles – and, yes, even Christ Himself.

If not by paying close attention to what we have heard about this Great Salvation, what other method is there by which we may discern, or truly be called discerning?

It now becomes clear why knowledge is an essential prerequisite for discernment: we have to know about the Great Salvation that is to be found only in Christ if we are to pay close attention to it.

Having received that Great Salvation, the love of Christ poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit now compels us to study it, proclaim it – even to contend for it. We do this in the hope that the Spirit may yet work in others faith and repentance by their hearing the Word of Christ, even granting to them the same joy that Grace has purchased at great price and freely bestowed upon us.

Discernment thus begins and ends with Christ. It is always about Christ, His person, His work.

Discernment abides in Christ. It feasts richly on His Word, for in the Scriptures alone do we find authoritative revelation of the person and work of Christ. All the Scriptures speak of Him, and in them we encounter God in human flesh, crucified for our sin and raised for our being declared righteous.

Discernment that is not centred upon Christ and His Gospel is thus utterly devoid of worth. It is fit for nothing but the dung heap.

Discernment thus rallies every believer with this cry: ‘Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead! To the Scriptures, which speak of Him! Contend for this faith once delivered! Shine forth this Good News – the power and wisdom of God to those who are called!’

If we were always about that business, if our every engagement were to further the cause of that Gospel? Truly, then would we be discerning discerners.

Frail as we are, may our heavenly Father, the almighty and everlasting God, grant for the sake of His Son by His Spirit that we cling to our great God and Saviour with simple childlike trust, confident of all He has promised. May He give us wisdom and true discernment through His Word, keeping us from every sin and danger, governing all our doings that they may be righteous in His sight. May He cause us to hold fast to the author and finisher of our faith, even Jesus Christ, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross.

Nothing happens till somebody starts dreaming. What we need today are great dreamers.

Those words occur not on the website of some ‘best-life-now’ life coach, but, rather surprisingly, in a post over at the Desiring God website:

• The Battle for Your Mind (Desiring God 2010 National Conference)

There we are given the command to ‘Let God stretch your imagination’ and told that ‘Nothing happens till somebody starts dreaming. What we need today are great dreamers.’

Now, where exactly does the Bible teach any of this?

Ah, I see we are helpfully given two Scriptures. Let’s look at those.

Where there is no vision, the people perish. (Proverbs 29:8)

Actually, that’s Proverbs 29:18, not 29:8. But, no matter. It’s easy to make a harmless mistake like that.

But there’s another, more serious, problem.

Proverbs 29:18 does not teach that ‘what we need today are great dreamers’.

Here’s a more accurate translation, with the second half of the verse included:

Where there is no revelation, the people cast off restraint;
But happy is he who keeps the law.’ (Proverbs 29:18, NKJV)

That’s better. It is now plain that this verse talks neither about our dreams and hopes for the future, nor of some leader’s ‘vision’ for a better tomorrow.

No. Rather, it refers to prophetic revelation from God.

And specifically, as is made clear by the second half of the verse, it is referring to the revelation of God’s Law (torah), which of course we have in the Scriptures by the prophets.

Here’s a tiny snippet about this verse from a reputable commentary:

[Janzen] adds: “The conviction in Prov. 29:18a semantically and syntactically parallels that in Prov. 11:14a, ‘Where there is no guidance (tahbūlôt), a people falls.’ There can be no doubt that tahbūlôt refers to the guiding power of wisdom received from God (cp. Prov. 1:1–7), and as such is generically synonymous with tôrâ (“teaching”). Anyone capable of holding the conviction expressed in xi 14a is capable of holding that ‘where there is no vision the people fall into anarchy.’ ” In sum, hāzôn [‘revelation’] refers here to the sage’s inspired revelation of wisdom.

Waltke, B. K. (2005). The Book of Proverbs. Chapters 15-31. The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (p. 446).

What Proverbs 29:18 says about this revealed Law is that, without it, people will ‘run wild’ (as HALOT succinctly puts it).

In other words, this verse teaches us that God’s Law acts as a curb on the base instincts and desires of our sinful nature.

This understanding is exactly in keeping with orthodox Christian doctrine, and is what Lutherans call the ‘first use of the Law’:

…the Law was given to men for three reasons:

• first, that thereby outward discipline might be maintained against wild, disobedient men [and that wild and intractable men might be restrained, as though by certain bars];
• secondly, that men thereby may be led to the knowledge of their sins;
• thirdly, that after they are regenerate and [much of] the flesh notwithstanding cleaves to them, they might on this account have a fixed rule according to which they are to regulate and direct their whole life…

Epitome of the Formula of Concord, Article VI

Proverbs 29:18 thus has nothing to do with letting ‘God stretch your imagination’, or our need for ‘great dreamers’, but rather with one beneficial use of the revelation given by God through His prophets.

The second Scripture mentioned is this:

In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, and your old men will dream dreams. (Acts 2:17, NIV)

Now, remember, this Scripture is being cited in support of our need to let God to ‘stretch [our] imagination’ and the claim that ‘nothing happens till somebody starts dreaming’. But, again, it is immediately clear (even in the translation quoted) that this verse teaches nothing of the sort.

Rather, what it does teach is that in the last days, God will pour out His Holy Spirit on ‘all people’ with the effect that sons and daughters will prophesy, young men will ‘see visions’, and old men will ‘dream dreams’.

The talk of visions and dreams is really an elaboration and repetition of the prior reference to prophecy, as is clear when we remember God’s rebuke of Aaron and Miriam for their criticism of Moses:

Then the LORD came down in the pillar of cloud and stood in the door of the tabernacle, and called Aaron and Miriam. And they both went forward. Then He said,

“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the LORD, make Myself known to him in a vision;
I speak to him in a dream.
Not so with My servant Moses;
He is faithful in all My house.
I speak with him face to face,
Even plainly, and not in dark sayings;
And he sees the form of the LORD.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant Moses?”

So the anger of the LORD was aroused against them, and He departed.

Numbers 12:5–9, NKJV

We see from this encounter that the normal way for God to communicate with his prophets was in a vision and a dream. Moses was an exception, since God spoke with Him face to face.

R. C. H. Lenski summarizes the meaning of Acts 2:17 very well in his commentary, The Interpretation of the Acts of the Apostles (pp. 74–75):

The chief effect of the Spirit’s activity is always prophesying, not in the narrow sense of foretelling future events, but in the broad and far more important sense of voicing the saving and blessed will of God to men everywhere. In 1 Cor. 14 Paul speaks of this as the best and highest gift of the Spirit; and Luther writes: “What are all other gifts together compared to this gift, that the Spirit of God himself, the eternal God, comes down into our hearts, yea, into our bodies and dwells in us, rules, guides, leads us! Thus now, as concerning this passage of the prophet, prophesying, visions, dreams are all one thing, namely the knowledge of God through Christ, which the Holy Spirit kindles and makes to burn through the Word of the gospel.” The fact that Luther is correct is shown by Peter when in v. 18 he adds to both the Hebrew and the LXX texts: “and they shall prophesy.” This is interpretative and repeats “they shall prophesy” from v. 17.

“Your sons and your daughters” is amplified by “your young men” and “your old men,” the possessives referring to the Jews to whom the Spirit first came through the apostles. The three lines of Hebrew poetry are parallel and synonymous statements, which means that all the predicates belong to all the subjects, sons, daughters, young men, old men. So the three predicates form a unit, each predicate saying the same thing with variation, as each subject is only a variation. All shall prophesy, confess, and tell the gospel, and thus the young men shall see glorious visions of its progress and its victories, and the old men shall dream dreams of its blessedness and its power, literally: “dream with dreams,” a Hebraism in the translation and not a case of a Greek cognate object.

Thus, the prophecy, visions and dreams of Acts 2:17 are all referring to, as Luther puts it, ‘the knowledge of God through Christ, which the Holy Spirit kindles and makes to burn through the Word of the gospel’. Yet this verse is cited in support of a very different kind of vision and dream, namely our hopes and plans for the future. Were those hopes and dreams tied specifically to the outworking of the Word of the Gospel, we might yet have accepted this as a valid interpretation. But no, the application is universal: ‘Nothing happens till somebody starts dreaming’.

Can you see what a terrible and Satanic twisting of Scripture has occurred in the way that both Proverbs 29:18 and Acts 2:17 have been abused?

We use the same English word ‘dream’ for the thoughts, images and sensations we have when we are asleep, and also for our own hopes and aspirations for the future. Yet the two are entirely distinct concepts. Likewise, we use the word ‘vision’ to refer both to a direct revelatory encounter with God, and also for our ideas of what the future could be like and our plans for achieving our goals. Again, these two meanings are totally different.

Passages referring to prophetic revelation given directly by God, and to the knowledge of God through Christ, have thus been misused and misapplied as if they were about our own hopes, ideas and plans for the future. Two completely unrelated concepts – ‘revelation from God’ and ‘our hopes for the future’ – have been exchanged by a sleight of hand, and an entire doctrine concerning the latter built upon a demonstrably false reading of the Scriptures.

Notice too that the revelation of Proverbs 29:18 and prophecy of Acts 2:17 both have their origin in God and His Word. They are given at His initiative, and their content is from Him. Yet the assertion that ‘Nothing happens till somebody starts dreaming’ leaves the initiative entirely in human hands. We are further instructed that ‘What we need today are great dreamers.’ The direct implication is that unless we busy ourselves with conjuring up some grand dreams, God is unable to act. Thus a Sovereign God is made subject to the actions of mortal man. ‘Nothing happens till somebody starts dreaming’ is therefore merely the expression of an aggrandizing self-idolatry – an idolatry made more egregious by its attempted justification from Scripture.

And so we have (at best) an utterly irresponsible handling of the Word of God. There is no excuse for this, as the briefest reference to any reputable commentary would dispel the notion that either of these passages is about our hopes and dreams for the future (at least, other than in so far as they are concerned with the Word of the Gospel). Nowhere does the Bible teach that ‘Nothing happens till somebody starts dreaming’, and that doctrine certainly cannot be found in either Proverbs 29:18 or Acts 2:17.

I am therefore immensely disheartened to see this dross on the Desiring God website. This is not ‘doctrinal and sound’. My disappointment is heightened especially because I have favourably linked to Desiring God content in the past.

Now, in case you think these things are of no great consequence in the church, please take the time to listen to Chris Rosebrough’s review of Mark Burchell’s ‘Dream Killers’ sermon. The review starts about 59:30 into the podcast, and shows exactly the serious consequences of this kind of teaching.

Going back now and reading more carefully the The Battle for Your Mind notes, it is striking how every single point involves something we must or must not do. There is nothing about what Christ has done for us. It is pure law. There is no Gospel here at all. No Christ crucified for our sins. No Christ raised for our justification. Just things we must do. How incredibly depressing.

As an antidote to this, let me come back to a point that I made above concerning God’s rebuke of Aaron and Miriam. I wrote:

We see from this encounter that the normal way for God to communicate with his prophets was in a vision and a dream. Moses was an exception, since God spoke with Him face to face.

God’s speaking ‘face to face’ with Moses immediately reminds us of Christ, the ‘prophet like you’ that God promised Moses would one day come:

And the LORD said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him. But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet shall die.’ And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the LORD has not spoken?’—when a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously; you shall not be afraid of him. (Deut. 18:17–22, NKJV)

(The prophet who presumes to speak in the name of God something that God has not command him to speak should take heed of the penalty for this sin. There are many false prophets speaking this way in the visible church today.)

Christ, of course, testified that He had seen God (face-to-face, as it were), thus declaring Himself to be the ‘prophet like you’ that God promised to Moses. But look at the context of that claim:

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws [drags] him; and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me. Not that anyone has seen the Father, except He who is from God; He has seen the Father. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. I am the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.

The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?”

Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who feeds on Me will live because of Me. This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.”

These things He said in the synagogue as He taught in Capernaum.

Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, “This is a hard saying; who can understand it?”

John 6:44–60, NKJV

Jesus is saying here not only that He has seen the Father, and that He was sent from God, but also that He is the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy that ‘they shall all be taught by God’ (Is. 54:13). Jesus thus asserts Himself to be the very God of the Hebrew Scriptures. The God who once spoke by His prophets now speaks directly to His people.

The writer to the Hebrews puts it like this:

God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. (Heb. 1:1–4, NKJV)

And what does the Son of God say?

This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world. (John 6:50–51, NKJV)

Christ says of Himself that He is the bread that comes down from heaven, that we may eat of Him and not die, but live forever!

All mankind was cursed in Adam on account of his sin, locked out from Eden and kept away from the tree of life, lest he ‘eat, and live forever’:

Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the LORD God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Gen. 3:22–24, NKJV)

But now, we see that the terrible curse upon us in Adam is undone in Christ. For Christ is our Tree of Life, and He tenderly invites us to eat of Him and live forever. Christ says: ‘If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world.’

This, then, is the Gospel: Christ’s body broken for the life of the world and His blood poured out for the remission of sins. The message of Scripture is not ‘Nothing happens till somebody starts dreaming’, but Christ crucified for our sins and raised for our justification. Repent, therefore, and believe this Good News.

S.D.G.

It is always dangerous to make such resolutions. Particularly in respect of a person who has proved such a fecund source of – how may I phrase this charitably? – statements that are open to possible misinterpretation.

It is at this point that Bobby will wish to stop reading, and pretend that I have not written this post. (Bobby, I have failed you. I am sorry for letting you down. Forgive me.)

Which brings me to the topic of this post, and an occasion for me to write once more about the Gospel of Christ Jesus crucified for sinners and raised from the dead.

Earlier today, Ken Silva drew my attention to his latest article, Rick Warren wants us to learn from Henri Nouwen. Ken writes about this tweet from Rick Warren:

(Online source)

My friend Christine Pack immediately picked this up, writing her own piece asking, Why is Rick Warren quoting universalist Henri Nouwen?

That’s a good question.

But it is not one I am going to address.

I shall concern myself here with the content of the tweet, rather than its original source.

Now, Christine is generous, and suggested elsewhere that Rick Warren might respond to any concerns by saying that, by ‘hiddenness’, he simply meant ‘hidden in Christ’.

It is good for us to be charitable toward one another.

Let us therefore assume that this is indeed what Rick Warren intended to convey. The revised tweet would now read:

Hidden in Christ is the place of purification. Hidden in Christ we find our true selves.

That is better than the original, but I am afraid that I am still not buying it.

If Rick Warren means to make a statement concerning Christ and His work, why then omit mention of Christ (the crucial element!) and thereby leave so much potential for misunderstanding?

Let us take the first sentence of this (generously) modified tweet:

Hidden in Christ is the place of purification.

With respect to purification, perhaps Rick Warren was thinking either of the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, or even our baptisms. Granted, the latter is unlikely, given that he’s SBC, but you never know.

Yet my justification, sanctification and glorification were not accomplished in a hidden place, but rather in full public view, the crowds watching (Matt. 27:35–56) as my Lord and Saviour shed His blood for the sins of the world (John 1:29; 1 John 2:2). And neither was my baptism performed in a secret place.

I suppose Warren might have been contemplating the Holy Spirit’s inward work of applying Christ’s life, death and resurrection to us (cf. 1 Cor. 6:11). This work may conceivably be thought ‘hidden’ in some sense, but such ‘hiddenness’ hardly seems to be a major theme of Scripture, and the results are most certainly not concealed.

Let us turn to the second sentence:

Hidden in Christ we find our true selves.

It is undoubtedly true that in Christ we become what God makes us to be:

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them. (Eph. 2:4–10, NKJV)

But ‘find’ surely is not the right verb, is it?

We do not ‘find our true selves’ when we are brought to Christ, as if unearthing something beautiful within that had hitherto lain undiscovered. Rather, God puts to death the wicked and wretched old ‘true self’ and makes us a new creation. The old has passed away; the new has come. (cf. 2 Cor. 5:17; Rom. 6.)

So again, I ask why this emphasis on ‘hiddenness’?

Yes, believers are forensically located in Christ. We dwell in Him, and the Spirit of God even now dwells within us (John 6:56; 15:1–11; 2 Tim. 1:14). But is ‘hidden in Christ’ a major theme of Scripture?

The closest Biblical reference I could find to this idea was Colossians 3:3:

For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God.

But there in the Greek we have σὺν τῷ χριστῷ (literally, ‘with the Christ’) and ἐν τῷ θεῷ (‘in the God’). So, not even that verse really conveys the idea of us being hidden in Christ.

In a final valiant effort to lend this verse as some sort of Biblical basis for Rick Warren’s tweet, we might further modify his words and read him as if he had written:

Hidden with Christ in God is the place of purification. Hidden with Christ in God we find our true selves.

But that is now very far removed from what was actually written:

Hiddenness is the place of purification. In hiddenness we find our true selves.

Back, then, to my original question: if Rick Warren meant to make a statement about Christ and His work – for that is the only proper focus of any discussion concerning our purification – why did he not simply do so? Why instead make a rather vague, abstract and self-directed (‘find our true selves’) allusion that many outside of Christ would find agreeable when understood in a mystical way?

Why leave people in darkness, looking for some secret, hidden true thing within themselves, rather than boldy directing them outwards to the person and work of the only One whose name has been given under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12)?
Filed under: Religion, Salvation, Spiritual Disciplines ]]> http://blog.betterthansacrifice.org/2010/09/14/how-not-to-speak-of-christ-and-his-work/feed/ 18 BetterThanSacrifice Rick Warren tweet http://blog.betterthansacrifice.org/2010/08/29/how-and-when-to-apply-law-and-gospel/ http://blog.betterthansacrifice.org/2010/08/29/how-and-when-to-apply-law-and-gospel/#comments Sun, 29 Aug 2010 17:49:20 +0000 BetterThanSacrifice http://blog.betterthansacrifice.org/?p=1073 Continue reading →]]> I’ve listened to barely a handful of Radical Grace Radio shows, but I’ve already come across a gem. The episode is pitched this way:

Have you ever had an infection, then had a doctor mis-prescribe the wrong medicine for your infection? This is exactly what it’s like when preachers prescribe too much law to you and no Gospel, or too much Gospel with no law.

Pastor Greg LeSieur and Matthew Pancake gently take their listeners through the proper use of Law and Gospel, and the circumstances in which each may properly be applied:

• Overdosed on the law – 6 May 2010 (MP3, 27MB)

Great stuff.

The author, Steven R. J. Parks, contrasts the Biblical view of sanctification with that presented by the Purpose Driven Life. He writes:

Thus, man cooperates in his sanctification, but only insofar as he is involved in it. God begins, continues, and completes His work in the redeemed. We do not take the initiative, nor are we even equal partners in the endeavor. Instead, our cooperation is passive, inasmuch as “it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

For Warren, however, man-initiated obedience is the key to fellowship with our Lord: “However, Jesus made it clear that obedience is a condition of intimacy with God.” It is important, according to Warren, “Because it proves you really love him.” So the biblical saints, such as Mary, act as examples for us: “God chose Mary to be the mother of Jesus, not because she was talented or wealthy or beautiful, but because she was totally surrendered to him.” Thus, we are told, if we want God’s blessing on our lives, we must likewise be obediently surrendered, manifesting the beatitudes: “If you want God’s blessing on your life and you want to be known as a child of God, you must learn to be a peacemaker.” Failure to do so may result in judgment: “I lose fellowship with God…I set myself up to be judged by God.”

Steven Parks goes on with a devastating (and carefully footnoted) indictment of the guidance given in the Purpose Driven Life to would-be godly Christians:

So Warren presents readers with the following “simple” instructions: discovering the three insights into your purpose, ascertaining the five reasons to live a purpose-driven life, applying the three metaphors of God’s view of life, learning God’s five purposes for your life, living God’s five plans for your life, enacting the five acts of worship that make God smile, uncovering six secrets of friendship with God, developing the four characteristics of the kind of worship that pleases God, performing the three important truths of fruitful fellowship, six reasons for being committed and active in a local fellowship, discovering the four principles of real fellowship, learning the four steps to cultivating community, creating a covenant using the nine characteristics of biblical fellowship, following the seven steps to restoring broken fellowship, promoting six ways to ensure unity, following the three steps to conflict resolution, uncovering the three responsibilities in becoming like Christ, practicing the three activities necessary to abide in God’s Word, carefully following the three specific steps in overcoming temptation, learning the four keys to defeating temptation, avoiding the five impediments to growing in Christ, enacting the four steps to cooperate with God in the process of Christian growth, participating in the six types of experiences God uses in molding us, discerning the three steps to clarifying what God intends you to be and do, finding the six steps to becoming a true servant, developing the five attitudes of a true servant, taking the four steps to allowing God to work through your weaknesses, establishing the six steps to discovering the importance of your mission, discerning the four parts of your life message, discovering your seven life lessons, implementing the four principles for thinking like a world-class Christian, participating in the four important activities for purpose-driven living, learning the five vital signs of worship, realizing the five steps to discovering your purpose statement, and remembering life’s five greatest questions. By following these one hundred and sixty-four simple steps, readers may initiate their own sanctification and live purpose-driven lives.

Phew! I’m so glad that Pastor Warren has simplified and distilled the Law for us in this way so that we may now keep it.

But there’s just one little nagging doubt: didn’t St. Paul have something to say to the Galatians about this sort of thing?

O foolish Galatians! Who has bewitched you that you should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed among you as crucified? This only I want to learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith? Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh? Have you suffered so many things in vain—if indeed it was in vain? (Gal. 3:1–4, NKJV)

Indeed, Steven Parks makes precisely this point. He goes on:

The law, of course, has no power to sanctify, whether it be Warren’s home-spun practical wisdom, or even God’s commandments themselves. In fact, the law primarily serves to reveal sin, always convicting its hearers of their shortcoming (lex semper accusat—Rom. 7:7). Thus, Warren’s one hundred and sixty-four simple steps to living a purpose-driven life, if taken seriously, will only aggravate sin and make matters worse: “But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead” (Rom. 7:8). For this reason, the Formula of Concord testifies: “For the Law says indeed that it is God’s will and command that we should walk in a new life, but it does not give the power and ability to begin and do it.” Indeed, this power is given by the Holy Spirit only through the gospel, precious little of which is found in The Purpose Driven Life.

Go ahead and read the whole review – I suspect you’ll find it thought provoking and Gospel-focused, even if you are not quite of one accord with one or two of its Lutheran emphases. (And if you are, you’ll love it.)

A debate has been ranging over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque, part of a community centre development proposed for 51 Park Place, New York. That’s just two blocks away from where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Centre once stood.

Tempers are fraying and emotions are at fever pitch.

Now, as an Englishman living on the Isle of Man – a small (but very pretty) rock in the middle of the Irish Sea – you’ll perhaps understand if this controversy has not exactly been front page news for me. I had not therefore been following it at all closely, especially as I have been very busy with work.

But my friend Paula Coyle, who has been active in the online debate, put it on my radar. Then, last week, Chris Rosebrough of Pirate Christian Radio posted his Fighting for the Faith podcast discussing the issue. And yesterday, Jason Coyle (married to Paula) wrote a well considered article taking issue with some of what Chris said.

Having tried to come somewhat up to speed, and having listened to what Chris had to say and read Jason’s response, I have some preliminary thoughts and questions of my own. I might be entirely off base in some of what I say here – perhaps even in everything – but certain aspects of the debate thus far puzzle me.

I am also not sure that I don’t detect some questionable and counter-factual thinking with respect to the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

I shall therefore take this opportunity to air my musings in public, with the hope that someone will set me straight and help me better understand the issues.

Before I continue, I should say that this post is something of a departure for me on this blog. I do not usually deal with political issues here. But this debate centres around the freedoms that my US-based brothers and sisters in Christ currently enjoy to proclaim the Gospel without hinderance from the government. That is most certainly within the remit I apply.

Rather than re-state what others have said elsewhere, I shall assume that you are familiar with the following:

• The Park51 project and its proposed facilities.
• Chris Rosebrough’s Fighting for the Faith podcast on the Ground Zero Mosque.
• Jason Coyle’s summary of Chris Rosebrough’s argument.
• Jason’s response to Chris Rosebrough.

The First Amendment

Even a non-American like me manages to pick up a limited knowledge of the US Constitution. And the protections enshrined by the First Amendment are, I think, one of its better known aspects:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I love this language.

I admire America, her people, and the whole US Constitutional project.

Yet I am frequently puzzled at how often US authorities fail to operate within the seemingly straightforward and easily understood parameters of First Amendment. Case in point: Dearborn, Michigan police repeatedly harassing Christians for peaceably preaching the Gospel. Another: the severe restrictions placed upon prayer in public schools.

Still, I am not a Constitutional lawyer, although I note that with regard to school prayer, that several US Supreme Court justices have dissented from the currently prevailing interpretation of the Constitution. It seems to me that there is hope.

Back to the text of the First Amendment.

It does not grant any rights to citizens. Rather, what it does is to protect them from having the rights that they already possess taken away by Congress.

This is important.

Now is a good time to remind ourselves of what President Obama said in his Ramadan speech:

Pay special attention beginning at the 3:09 mark:

As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the right to practise their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes, that includes the right to build a place of worship, and a community centre, on private property in Lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances.

This is America.

And our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakeable.

Given what the First Amendment says, it clearly follows that it is not permissible for the government to object to the building of a mosque anywhere in the US, at least where such construction would be in accord with the relevant laws.

Thus, as a matter of the Lefthand Kingdom, President Obama was correct in his intent to defend the right of Muslims to exercise their religion freely, absent interference from government. This right is indeed protected (but not granted) by the US Constitution. But note that, unlike the President, I say exercise, and not practise (sic – I use British spelling, which distinguishes the noun from the verb). I shall return to this point, as it is one upon which the Supreme Court has ruled.

Muslim Americans thus have the right to pursue the building of a mosque on private property in Manhattan without fear of government intervention, provided that they adhere to applicable laws.

However, nowhere does the Constitution protect the right actually to build such a mosque, as the President asserts that it does.

The distinction may be a fine one, but it is critical to the debate, and to the argument that Chris Rosebrough is advancing.

The Declaration of Independence famously states this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration does not say that these are the only unalienable rights with which men are endowed, but it does positively assert that among those rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Now, without becoming sidetracked as to precisely what the 56 signatories to the Declaration of Independence meant by ‘the pursuit of Happiness’, let us read that broadly and assume that it does include the right for American Muslims to pursue the building of a mosque at Ground Zero. Why should it not?

Is there any credible critic of the Park51 proposals who would deny American Muslims their right to pursue Happiness in any lawful way that they themselves desire?

I suspect not.

Therefore, it would be to construct something of a straw man to predicate an argument upon the assumption that opponents of Park51 somehow wish to deny American Muslims their unalienable rights.

Notice, though, that it is the pursuit of Happiness that is an unalienable right. Whereas Life and Liberty themselves are credited with being unalienable, the language of the Declaration makes an emphatic distinction with regard to Happiness. It is only the pursuit of Happiness that is stated to be a right, not its attainment.

Thus, while hardly anyone would deny that American Muslims have the right to pursue the lawful building of a mosque anywhere they wish, it is a considerable stretch to claim that they have an intrinsic unalienable right actually to accomplish the building of that mosque.

Now, President Obama claims that Muslims do have ‘the right to build a place of worship on private property and a community centre in Lower Manhattan in accordance with local laws and ordinances’. He does not say that they have the right to ‘pursue the building of’ their mosque, but the right actually ‘to build a place of worship’. But that is a mere assertion, and he provides no evidence with which to substantiate his claim.

Perhaps this seems to be a distinction without meaning?

Then consider this.

If Muslims have a Constitutionally protected right to accomplish the building of a mosque in Lower Manhattan, would not the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government be obligated to ensure the fulfilment of that right, and thus take active steps to ensure that the mosque were built? Given the existence of such a right, might not the government even be obliged to fund the construction of the Park51 community centre and mosque if, for example, American Muslims were unable themselves to find the $100m that the project requires?

Is anyone arguing such a thing?

If not, why do Glenn Beck (as he says in a clip played on Chris’ podcast) and Chris Rosebrough meekly seem to accept President Obama’s assertion that Muslims have a right, not only to pursue the building of their mosque, but actually to build it (provided it does not contravene the relevant laws)? For that is what the phrase ‘right to build a mosque’ implies.

I suppose they mean to say that this right is present, provided that the Muslims are able to raise sufficient funds, purchase their building, satisfy any public enquiries, conform to planning controls, and so forth.

But in that case, the ‘right to build’ is not really all that meaningful, is it?

Language matters. Words have meaning (despite the assertions of some to the contrary). Precision in our statements is important. Especially when the President of the most powerful nation on earth is lecturing on the finer points of her Constitution.

Is it not possible that imprecision in our terminology might lead to imprecision in our thinking? Might this not in turn impair our ability to sustain a credible argument? And could such carelessness not perhaps ultimately lead to Christians losing the battle of ideas that is necessary to safeguard the religious freedoms currently enjoyed by Americans?

I am in all likelihood missing something fundamental with respect to the nature and operation of the Constitution. I am, after all, a mere Englishman pondering complex issues from a distant position of extreme ignorance. Please explain to me where I am going wrong.

But even if the right to build a mosque does exist, is it necessarily a right protected by the Constitution? As I read it, the First Amendment says nothing about protecting the right of religious groups to accomplish their desires. Neither does it seek to defend religious groups from lawful opposition to their goals. Rather, it protects citizens from Congress passing laws that seek to prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Thus, lawful and peaceable opposition to the building of a mosque on Park Place is not an infringement upon anyone’s First Amendment rights.

Does the Constitution protect the freedom to ‘practise religion’?

The President attempts to support his claim that the Founders intended to protect the practise of religion (1:10–1:22):

Our Founders understood that the best way to honor the place of faith in the lives of our people was to protect their freedom to practise religion.

In the Virginia Act of Establishing Religious Freedom, Thomas Jefferson wrote that ‘all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion’.

But notice what the President’s quotation from Thomas Jefferson endorses: not the freedom to practise religion, but merely the right to profess and maintain by argument one’s beliefs.

These really aren’t the same thing. Not at all.

I do not say that no evidence exists to support the President’s position; merely that the he did not present it. His researchers and speechwriters have not served him well.

Do Americans have the right to ‘worship as they choose’?

President Obama makes a further claim that ‘Americans have the right to worship as they choose’ (1:38–2:04 in his speech).

Again, that assertion sounds superficially plausible, but fails upon closer examination.

The Constitution does not protect the right of citizens to worship through performing human sacrifice, for example. And the Supreme Court ruled against polygamy in 1878, interpreting the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause as ‘protecting religious beliefs, not religious practices that run counter to neutrally enforced criminal laws’ (as the University of Missouri-Kansas City School summarizes).

Although this position was subsequently softened by later rulings, more recent developments have returned to a narrow interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, the University of Missouri-Kansas City School has this to say:

The big development—shocking to some—in Free Exercise jurisprudence came in Employment Division v Smith in 1990. Reinterpreting and, in some cases, throwing out decades of caselaw, five members of the Supreme Court concluded that a generally applicable criminal law raises no Free Exercise issues at all, ending what had long been the obligation of states to demonstrate at least an important state interest and narrow tailoring when they enforced laws that significantly burdened religious practice.

In other words, the Supreme Court in 1878 interpreted the Free Exercise Clause to mean the same thing as the words of Thomas Jefferson that President Obama quoted, and recent courts have returned to that same narrow understanding.

The Supreme Court understands the First Amendment not as protecting the practise of religion, but rather the right of people to hold, profess and, by public argument, to maintain their beliefs.

Thus, the President is speaking contrary to the opinions of the Supreme Court when he appeals to the First Amendment in support of either a right to ‘practise religion’ or for people to ‘worship as they choose’. He presents no evidence that such rights are Constitutionally protected.

Again, it would seem that the President has been ill-served by his advisors.

If I understand him correctly, Chris Rosebrough is vigorously defending what he believes to be a Constitutionally protected right to the free practise of religion. Yet, given the rulings of the Supreme Court concerning the Free Exercise Clause, I wonder whether that point of Constitutional principle has not in fact already been long conceded, if indeed it ever existed.

Simply, then, I do not currently understand the Constitutional basis upon which Chris is arguing.

We do not have to like the Constitutional situation as interpreted by both past and recent Supreme Courts (although a narrow interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause does not seem to me to be incompatible with the precise wording of the text). Americans are free to disagree with their Supreme Court, and to pursue a change of interpretation. But they are unlikely to act with meaningful effect unless they first understand the relevant facts for what they are.

Now, whatever restrictions may eventually be imposed upon the practise of Christianity by an increasingly secularized society, no Supreme Court has yet denied that the First Amendment protects the freedom to profess and argue for one’s religious opinions. Thus, the Constitution does seem to guarantee the unimpeded proclamation of Law and Gospel, even in the face of opposition from those who find the message of Christ crucified for sinners to be offensive.

For this we should rejoice and thank the Lord. For our desire is not merely to uphold the Lefthand Kingdom rights of Christians, but to pursue the Righthand proclamation of the Gospel to the lost, in the hope that the Lord might thereby graciously save some.

My observations thus far

In summary, then, my (probably wrong-headed) understanding of the First Amendment is that it protects religious freedom by prohibiting Congress from passing laws intended to impede the free exercise of religion. Nevertheless, religious practice may be constrained by neutrally enforced criminal law.

Further, I assert that the prohibiting of Congress from passing laws restricting the free exercise of religion is emphatically not the same thing as granting citizens the right to build a mosque, even on their own private property.

I make these observations because much of the discussion I have seen and heard seems to assume that the First Amendment either grants citizens positive rights, or protects freedoms far more extensive than either its plain text or the prevailing rulings of the Supreme Court would suggest.

My general point is thus that, if we are to discuss the Constitutional issues intelligently and prevail in the marketplace of ideas, we need to be very careful of our facts and not misconstrue the freedoms that the Constitution actually protects.

Let me state once more that I am not a Constitutional lawyer. I am well aware that I will already have erred on many points thus far in my discussion, and that my status as one ignorant of US Constitutional law will be patently obvious to anyone who is trained in such matters. Again, please correct me and set the record straight. I am not seeking to be contentious, but merely to establish and comprehend the facts of the Constitutional situation.

Did President Obama make a principled appeal to the Constitution? And what about the right to freedom of speech?

Although Chris Rosebrough correctly points out that President Obama appeals to the Constitution, given the above observations, I rather suspect that Chris is being overly generous when he credits the President with a Constitutionally defensible stance.

As I currently see things (and I am well prepared to change my view, if and when someone shows me my error), the President apparently asserts that the Constitution protects rights that it does not. And he notably fails to balance the right to be free from government interference in the expression of religion with another right also protected by the First Amendment: freedom of speech.

As much as Chris valiantly defends the rights of those seeking to build the mosque, might he not, like the President, perhaps be tending toward inconsistency when he neglects to defend with equal vigour the Constitutional right of those who oppose the mosque to voice their opinions?

It is not a de facto unconstitutional stance to speak one’s strong opposition to the way that someone else wishes lawfully to exercise their religion.

In fact, the opposite would seem to be true: to maintain the freedom to preach the Gospel, it is precisely the right to speak openly in opposition to other religions (including the religion of secular humanism) that must be protected. And that right must be protected every bit as much as the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom from ‘laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’.

Rights are best maintained by regular use. I do not therefore understand the logic behind the criticisms Chris makes of those who are voicing opposition to the Park51 mosque. They would merely seem to be exercising their First Amendment right to free speech.

Now, if Chris had confined his criticism to those calling for government intervention to prevent the mosque being built, then he would have a point, and I would agree with it entirely.

Any such calls, if they are being made, would be unconstitutional and would represent a real danger to religious freedom in the US.

And I likewise support him in his caution against playing into the hands of those with anti-religious agendas by the use of extreme and intemperate language. Every believer involved in the debate should take his warnings to heart and tone down the rhetoric. Let us be gracious to those with whom we disagree, even if they are unrestrained in their arguments against us.

But I part company with Chris to the extent that he intends to go further than that by criticizing those who simply argue passionately that the mosque should not be built, but who are neither calling for government intervention nor seeking to prevent its construction by anything other than peaceable and lawful means. They have a Constitutionally protected right to voice their opinions, and it is essential to the preservation of religious freedom that they are vigorously supported in exercising that right, whether or not one agrees with every (or indeed any) aspect of their argument.

Understanding the sensitivities over the Park51 proposals

The Park51 website makes plain that a mosque is part of the proposals. This is not a matter of dispute. The website says:

Park51 will grow into a world-class community center, planned to include the following facilities:

• outstanding recreation spaces and fitness facilities (swimming pool, gym, basketball court)
• a 500-seat auditorium
• a restaurant and culinary school
• cultural amenities including exhibitions
• education programs
• a library, reading room and art studios
• childcare services
• a mosque, intended to be run separately from Park51 but open to and accessible to all members, visitors and our New York community
• a September 11th memorial and quiet contemplation space, open to all

Now, the Park51 website also goes out of its way to present its proposals as inclusive, being ‘in the spirit of tolerance and service’ and a ‘gesture of dedication to our city’. For the sake of my following points, I shall assume the veracity of these claims without question.

The President was absolutely right to say that all must ‘recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan’.

Although some might question whether President Obama was correct in stating that the 9/11 terrorist’s cause was ‘not Islam, it’s a gross distortion of Islam’, it is clear that he singularly failed to address meaningfully in his remarks the fact that those terrorists were most certainly at least operating in the name of Islam, and that not a few in the Muslim world saw them as doing so legitimately.

(For the record, let me be absolutely clear that I recognize that there are also many people who would self-identify as Muslim and yet condemn all terrorist acts without reservation. I in no way wish to impugn the motives or behaviour of peaceful law-abiding Muslims, US citizens or otherwise.)

The President rather failed, I think, to show adequately in his Ramadan speech that he understood the legitimate feelings of many New Yorkers and other Americans concerning this issue. On 9/11, America was attacked in the name of Islam. Now here was their President, defending the building of a mosque practically upon the primary place of that attack. Would it not be understandable if many were to feel betrayed by his words, even if the President himself intended no such offence?

Yet President Obama went even further, proclaiming that American Muslims have a right actually to build a mosque in Lower Manhattan. I have already stated my case for questioning whether such a right exists or, if it does, whether it is protected by the Constitution.

Thus, although President Obama asserted that we must ‘recognize and respect the sensitivities surrounding the development of Lower Manhattan’, he gave the impression to many of neglecting to heed his own advice.

It must be blatantly obvious to even the most neophyte politician that not a few New Yorkers would perceive the building of a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero as, if not a victory of sorts for the ideology of the terrorists, then at least something that those sympathetic to the 9/11 attackers would claim as such, and thus use in their continuing propaganda and efforts to raise funds for further terrorist attacks.

Is it not therefore entirely understandable that emotions are running high? How galling it must be for some, not only to have to endure Osama bin Laden’s continuing evasion of justice, but now also apparently to see his professed cause gain ground with their own President’s apparent blessing. And not just any ground, but Ground Zero.

Sentiments are fraught, therefore, not over the proposed building of just any mosque, but over the plans for this particular mosque in a location that has acquired an extreme symbolic importance to the identity of the American people and their stand against terror.

To concede this ground – if not to the enemy, then at least to the religion in whose name an atrocity has so recently been committed upon it – appears to many to be a capitulation to terror. In their view, this would add insult to the terrible injury that the American people have suffered. The very idea is itself a stench in their nostrils, and ample cause for the intensity of the current debate.

One does not have to agree with that view in order to grant that it has a legitimate basis, and that those holding it should be treated gently and with respect.

I do not therefore fault President Obama for not viewing the matter this way himself.

But, by failing to recognize that this is an emotionally sensitive issue of honour, symbolism and principle for many patriotic Americans, and instead treating it as an abstract constitutional matter in his speech, the President is at least guilty of incompetent politics.

Though that is not in itself a crime, I cannot comprehend how President Obama made such a basic error. That said, reviewing again Chris Rosebrough’s analysis, I am not sure that he does not similarly fail to give sufficient weight to the idea that those opposed to the construction of the mosque might have a genuine and potentially legitimate grievance. Perhaps I am missing something.

What the President might have said in his Ramadan speech

I wonder why, in defending the protections afforded by the Constitution, President Obama did not endeavour to unite US citizens together around those very freedoms? Could he not easily have spoken along the following lines, even allowing for the fact he was addressing an iftar dinner:

Our Constitution – which I am bound by oath to preserve, protect and defend – enshrines the freedom of our citizens to exercise their religion without interference from government. That freedom includes the right of Muslims to seek to build places of worship – even in Lower Manhattan.

We treasure these First Amendment freedoms, even as others fear them and seek to take them from us. Unable to win in the arena of peaceful discussion and debate, the enemies of freedom resort to shameful acts of terror. By their deeds, they show the impotence of their ideas, in contradistinction to the preeminence of our liberty.

It is our Constitutional freedoms that define America and make her great. We determinedly hold them fast, whatever trials and tribulations we may endure. The noble ideas upon which this nation is founded can never be defeated by base acts of barbarism.

Nonetheless, the same First Amendment that safeguards our free exercise of religion also protects our freedom of speech. These rights are inseparable. Neither one can stand alone. And so we hold the right to speak freely as dearly as we do our free exercise of religion.

There are many who think it inappropriate that a mosque should be built so close to the place where terrorists committed an atrocity in the name of Islam. They have a right to give voice to their thoughts and feelings. And were a mosque to be built close to Ground Zero, there would no doubt be some among the enemies of freedom who would perceive this to be a sign of our weakness.

They would be wrong.

The building of a mosque close to Ground Zero would be proof not of our vulnerability, but of our steadfast resolve to uphold with eternal vigilance the freedoms of all our citizens, whatever their colour or creed.

Thus, even as we honour the right of Muslim Americans to seek to build a community centre and mosque in Park Place, we also uphold the right of other citizens to speak peaceably in opposition to its construction.

Park51 is therefore a matter for civil discourse, but not for government diktat. This is the American way. And so, even as loyal and patriotic American citizens legitimately disagree over this issue, let us celebrate the Constitutional freedoms that unite us in our noble land of liberty.

I am no speech writer, but could President Obama not at least have acknowledged the First Amendment right of freedom of speech for those who feel so very strongly that the Park51 mosque should not be constructed?

President Obama could have used his speech to prepare the way such that, whether or not the mosque is eventually built, Americans could have stood together, united by their Constitution and proud of their freedoms – the very freedoms that enable the Gospel to be proclaimed without government restriction.

Instead, the President’s words stirred up the controversy and sowed seeds of discord. His Ramadan speech left America more divided, not less.

Conclusion

Am I way off base with anything I have written here? Have I woefully misinterpreted the nature of the Constitution or the First Amendment? Have I misunderstood the motivations of those opposing the Park51 project? Have I been unfair to Chris, or even to President Obama?

If so, I’d appreciate some guidance to bring me back on track, even if it’s just a link to a primer on Constitutional law! And if this whole article is without merit, I am happy simply to withdraw it.

I believe that Chris is probably correct with respect to the hidden agendas held by some engaged in the public debate. It is beyond credible doubt that there are those who are exploiting this situation for their own political or secularist ends.

But it would be overly simplistic to paint everyone involved in the discussion with that particular brush: there are legitimate reasons driving some to oppose Park51, and I believe that Americans would be wise to defend through exercise their First Amendment right to speak freely.

I am therefore unconvinced that opposing the construction of the mosque is in itself to place the religious freedoms of American citizens in jeopardy. I do not see the Constitutional basis for that line of reasoning, although I remain open to persuasion.

That said, any public discourse by Christians should always be conducted in a way that is blameless. It would be all too easy to give ammunition to those with a secularist agenda who wish to excise religion entirely from the public sphere.

Chris is absolutely correct to identify this danger, and to seek to mitigate it.

I thank God for giving the church faithful and insightful men such as he. May the Lord grant that every believer’s conduct be likewise ‘worthy of the gospel of Christ’ (Phil. 1:27). For it is our freedom to proclaim the Gospel of Christ crucified for sinners and raised from the dead that Chris, Jason and many others seek to defend.

My fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, I commend your efforts to contend both for the Gospel and for your continued freedom to proclaim it. I leave you with these words of counsel and encouragement from Paul to Titus:

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.

Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.

Titus 2:11–15

S.D.G.

For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope. (Jeremiah 29:11)

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. (John 10:10)

Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and eat with him, and he with me. (Revelation 3:20)

“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:36-40)

Where there is no vision the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18)