Thoughts on T.D. Jakes' Invitation to the Elephant Room 2

1/14/2012 | By Will Brannon

Back to the Elephant Room. So, basically what we have are Trinitarians debating with a Modalist in a public forum. Is that necessarily a bad thing? No. Let me explain why.

Is Debate Inherently a Bad Thing?

Debate is good. Jesus debated the Pharisees. Paul debated with the philosophers of his day. I love debates…I enjoy both watching them and having them. I love debates between Christians and Muslims, atheists and theists, etc. I love debates because they give somebody who is standing for the gospel the opportunity to openly and publicly preach the gospel (and oppose a heresy or anti-biblical point of view).

A great example: a while back Mark Driscoll debated Deepak Chopra on the existence of Satan. Driscoll clearly proclaimed the gospel on a national forum while systematically debunking every argument Chopra used. I loved it.

So, when I first heard about the Elephant Room 2 I was excited—some orthodox followers of Jesus are finally going to publicly call T.D. Jakes out. Calling false teaching what it is, pointing out the errors in non-Trinitarian thinking, and calling Bishop Jakes to repentance is a good thing in my book. It honors the gospel and glorifies Jesus.

But here is the problem: time has revealed this is not at all what the Elephant Room 2 is about.

James MacDonald’s Troubling Statement

James MacDonald, the organizer of the Elephant Room, released a video about the event after T.D. Jakes was brought on board:

The comments that could be made on this video are endless, so I will just focus on the biggest problem: using the word “brothers.” MacDonald states in the video, “We are going to be getting some brothers together to talk about the issues that separate us…Men that believe the word of God, men that preach the gospel.”

Now we have a problem.

MacDonald just openly and publicly embraced T.D. Jakes as three things: a brother in Christ, an orthodox Christian, and a biblical teacher. As we saw in the previous article, wrong on all three counts.

My heart sank when I saw this clip. The hope I (and so many others) was holding out for burned to the ground.

Any confusion on what the intentions of Elephant Room 2 are ceased with that video. Many of us excited about the event assumed it was: biblical Christians openly rebuking an unorthodox Christian and calling him back to the gospel. Time has shown it to be: a bunch of men discuss issues that have been deemed secondary.

Thabiti Anayabwile voiced his disappointment with Elephant Room 2 in a blog post he wrote back in October 2011. In that post he stated:

This kind of invitation undermines that long, hard battle many of us have been waging in a community often neglected by many of our peers. And because we’ve often been attempting to introduce African-American Christians to the wider Evangelical and Reformed world as an alternative to the heresy and blasphemy so commonplace in some African-American churches and on popular television outlets, the invitation of Jakes to perform in “our circles” simply feels like a swift tug of the rug from beneath our feet and our efforts to bring health to a sick church. (1)

But other teachers, such as Mark Driscoll (who will moderate the Elephant Room 2), are asking Christians not to condemn the event so quickly. In a post Driscoll wrote on the topic, he said:

Regarding Bishop Jakes, my preference is to simply let the man speak for himself and see what he says. As moderator, I assure you, I don’t want to do anything but let the men speak for themselves without being disrespected, set-up, or pushed into an unfair position—and I know this is MacDonald’s stance too. The Bible is clear about loving people and truth telling. Our plan is to have both. (2)

I appreciate the sentiment, and I agree we should let Jakes speak for himself. But that is exactly the point. He has. Saying, “I am not a Modalist,” then saying, “He [God] is Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Holy Spirit in regeneration,” is like saying, “I am not a Muslim. I confess Muhammad as the highest prophet, I pray five times a day, and I love the Koran.” As said in the article about Jakes’ Modalism, refusing to accept a label does not mean you do not fit it.

Interestingly, in that same article Driscoll wrote:

For the record, I am staunchly Trinitarian, consider it a closed-handed issue that is necessary for Christian orthodoxy, and am certain MacDonald is also Trinitarian.

Here is my question then: why is Elephant Room 2 being marketed as “brothers” getting together? T.D. Jakes is a nationally known, best selling, preaching, high-profile “Christian celebrity.” He has a huge platform and following. He has written over 30 books and preached who knows how many sermons, and he can’t clear up this confusion before January 25?

I can only think of one reason: Jakes does reject a historical understanding of the Trinity, and he knows it.

I am still desperately trying to give Driscoll, MacDonald, and others involved the benefit of the doubt. But time has made that more and more difficult. Is the event to be a grand revealing of T.D. Jakes as orthodox? Is Jakes going to publicly say, “I know I have been confusing. Let me make it clear: I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Three persons, but one God. I believe in the Trinity.” Unfortunately, I highly doubt it.

Can this possibly turn out well?

I still see one way this event will not be a train wreck: Driscoll, in his controversial no holds barred style, will question Jakes on his theology. If/when he does deny the Trinity (again) Driscoll will openly and publicly label Jakes what he is when he persists in his modalist theology: a heretic.

A number of people have said there is no way this will happen, but I am not so sure. Say what you want about Driscoll’s style, but you have to give the man credit for at least one thing: he is blunt. It has gotten him into some trouble, but it has also made him one of the very few high profile guys out there who is willing to call certain doctrines heresy. I do not know if that will happen or not. In his article, Driscoll plainly said non-Trinitarians are not orthodox. Yet, he seems to think Jakes does not fit that, despite the things he has said.

I guess time will tell.

So, is it wrong?

I will close out this post by attempting to answer the question a lot of people have been asking from the very beginning: was it wrong to invite Jakes to the Elephant Room? I would say yes for one simple reason: the Elephant Room 2 is being marketed as a debate of Christians. This is not Frank Turek debating Christopher Hitchens. This is not Mark Driscoll debating Deepok Chopra. In events such as those, a clear line was drawn to show the debate was between people with starkly different worldviews. In the Elephant Room 2, those lines have been blurred into oblivion.

Scripture could not be more clear that believers should not embrace with wolves. In other words, we should not entertain the teachings of teachers who claim the name of Christ in profession but attack the character of the Godhead with their words.

In 1 Timothy 1:3-7, Paul admonishes Timothy to correct false teaching, not “dialogue” with it. Why? Because teaching contrary to Scripture is not all the 21st century (American) Church has cracked it up to be. It is not helpful, edifying, or a good way to grow by expanding your “perspective.” False teaching is a bunch of “myths” that give rise to “mere speculation.”

Paul’s next letter to Timothy urges him to “avoid worldly and empty chatter, for it will lead to further ungodliness” (2 Timothy 2:16). In the next verse, Paul says giving false teachers a platform to spread their heresies will make their talk “spread like gangrene.”

Finally, in Titus 1:10-11 Paul says that false teachers are selfish men who should be “silenced.”

I will conclude with a quote from Charles Spurgeon. Commenting on Galatians, he wrote these words:

The modern style of speaking is, "Let us fraternize with him [a heretic]; he is a man of original thought. Surely, you would not bind all men down to one mode of speech. Perhaps, if he has made mistakes, you will bring him round to your way of thinking by receiving him kindly into your fellowship."

"No, no;" says Paul, "As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

(1) http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2011/10/01/collateral-damage-in-the-invitation-of-t-d-jakes-to-the-elephant-room/

(2) http://pastormark.tv/2011/09/29/reflections-on-james-macdonald-td-jakes-and-the-trinity