An Elephant in the Room

Redeemed Rambling is not a "watchblog." In fact, I consider watchblogs to be the worst kind of garbage - American pop sentimentality and voyeurism plastered with just enough veneer of Christian language to justify those who waste their time reading them. Reality TV for Christian glory hunters. So, if I take the time to address a book, or ministry, or Christian happening in a negative light (such as my recent fair, but generally negative, assessment of Smith's book) it is not because I think it is my sworn duty to protect all and sundry from those that disagree with me. Rather, it is because I detect something that will help my readers - even if that help is in the form of a warning. That is why I am writing about the Elephant Room and why I have waited to write about it. I am going to think through some things, and I want to make sure that you, dear reader, have had sufficient time to cool your jets before embarking on this little adventure with me. The Elephant Room has elicited a lot of feedback - by which I mean a general ruckus of course - and I certainly hope that my own words neither egg this visceral response on, nor contribute to such infantile reactionary blathering.

But while I may not get my kicks out of rousing the ever-excitable rabble, the Elephant Room begs to be addressed in a thoughtful and comprehensive way. I hope to at least move toward that in this post. In the interest of fair disclosure, I have listened to some, but not all, of the Elephant Room, and have read some transcripts of some of the talks. Having listened and done a bit of digging on the Internet, I think several things need to be addressed by the Evangelical community at large.

Double Speak

Its hard not to use the word "hypocrisy" here, but I want to be as fair as possible. The ER (hah, that's funny) seems to foster a weird kind of double-speak where things can be and not be at the same time. For example, Chris Rosebrough (@Piratechristian), an outspoken critic of ER, was actually threatened with arrest when he showed up, even though he paid to attend. In any case this would seem an absurd case of censorship (its not as if Rosebrough has done anything threatening - except preach the truth, imho), but in the case of the Elephant Room it is even more disturbing because it directly contradicts their own 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.

  This is a rather obvious example of actions speaking louder than words - drowning them out, really - in a rather blatant contradiction. You can read Chris's full account here. Another example of this double speak is highlighted in the following video by Todd Friel (of Wretched):









Friel is pointing to an obvious contradiction - both MacDonald and Driscoll have called the prosperity gospel a false gospel. As Paul shows us in Galatians, false gospels are damned to hell, so calling something a false gospel is about as strong of language as one can use for heresy. This leaves us with a problem, because as Friel highlights above, Jakes clearly and consistently preaches a prosperity gospel. And yet, ER concludes that Jakes is a genuine brother in Christ. So, either MacDonald and Driscoll are abusing the term "false gospel", or they don't think that Jakes' teaching is "really" prosperity gospel. Either way there is something rotten in Illinois.

Fast and Loose with the Athanasian Creed

Central to the ER debate has been the inclusion of T.D. Jakes. I quite understand the hubris raised around this decision. Now don't get me wrong - I have pagan friends at work and we argue about theology all the time. So, there shouldn't be an issue with sitting Jakes down and having a good old fashioned jawing over a mint julep. But, MacDonald insisted on called Jakes a "brother". Let's not fall into the trap of conflating a reluctance to call someone brother with a reluctance to engage in conversation. There is a reason many evangelicals are uncomfortable calling Jakes a brother. For starters, there is the whole prosperity gospel thing. It is hard to have the very hosts of ER call it a damnable thing, and yet embrace someone who pretty clearly preaches it. But even more concerning is Jakes' modalism. Now, there is some important nuance Jakes' theological growth, as described in this Christian Post article, but at the end of the day, Jakes doesn't accept the orthodox, ecumenical understanding of Trinity.

Jakes denies being a modalist (frankly, this falls in the "duh" category - I hardly expect anyone to jump up and down and yell "pick me for the heretic team!"), although he admits he was one at one point. But while he may have left modalism behind, he hasn't quite come to terms with orthodoxy (or Hebrews, for that matter). Jakes says that he believes in one God, three manifestations. Sorry, Jakes, that isn't Trinitarianism, it's Sabellianism. See Tom Chantry's transcript to read it for yourself.

Now early thinkers realized this was more than just a matter of how one perceived God - it has implications for God Himself. In fact, it is fear of God's name that drives all of the ecumenical councils and results in the harshest of language - heresy - being associated with disagreement. As Tertullian rightly reasoned, Sabellianism gives way to Patripassianism (the idea that God the Father suffers, particularly regarding the sufferings of Christ on the cross). Patripassianism is pretty clearly contradicted in Hebrews.

But for some undisclosed reason, these objections are just swept under the rug by the ER. Strange.

Deeds and Creeds

All of this highlights a very important aspect of Christianity that ER seems to have ignored. Throughout Christian history, equal weight has been given to orthodoxy and orthopraxy. Both are necessary but insufficient parts of the Christian walk. It seems as if, for the ER folks, having Jakes declare that he is trinitarian is enough. But when, dear friend, are we going to get it through our collective cro-magnon fontanelles that saying the right doctrine is not the same as believing it. True faith, James points out sternly, works. A tree and its fruit, my friend. And the fruit coming from the likes of Jakes (and Noble, and Furtick, and...) is frankly rotten. I don't care what Jakes says he believes, he preaches a prosperity gospel and modalism (Oh, yes. Watch some of his messages, or read his books).

All of this raises a very, very important question in my mind - what exactly is the point of the Elephant Room? Look with me through the circus lights and clown paint to the question below. Assume for a moment of sorely burdensome suspension of disbelief that we all agree with ER on everything. What is the point? ER's Purpose Statement says "We must insist on the biblical Gospel, right doctrine and practice but not isolate ourselves from relationship even with those who believe much differently."

Well, the Elephant Room hasn't insisted on the biblical Gospel, it hasn't insisted on right doctrine, and it hasn't insisted on right practice. The ER, my friends, has failed. (For some excellent insight, read Trevin Wax's thoughts about how to think about ER2 at his new TGC blog location).