Open Email: SBC Pastors’ Conference 2011 Doctrinal Concern

I find it interesting for sure that T.D. Jakes is a welcomed guest on the Oprah Winfrey network. Apparently he is able to teach a means of achieving happiness in life just by identifying one's own destiny even if it is separate from Jesus. In other words, you don't have to be born again to experience the blessings of life in Christ. This is simply ludicrous and I hope it is being exposed by someone with exposure to a large Christian audience. God help us...

While I am thrilled Southern Baptists hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, I am perplexed why there is so much emphasis on seeking the Lord without seeking out the Holy Spirit as the One who can not only lead us to Truth (the very character and Mind of Christ) in Scripture. We can do nothing without Christ, therefore we can do nothing without the Holy Spirit as we pray constantly. Anything less is walking by sight and leaning to one's own understanding. No wonder SBC membership is declining - let's just hope that's just churchgoers and not disciples.

Did Vance Pitman ever respond directly to anyone regarding this invitation and its revocation? Just curious.

Thank you, Mark, for your reply. I have no doubt you will be a pastor. :) It did occur to me that Christiane may be known to you, in some context that is not apparent to me yet, as a new reader, and hence the harsh reply.

It particularly struck me because I stumbled upon your blog because I've recently started going to a Baptist church and am curious about what it means to be Baptist, what the denominational history is and why on earth there are so many Baptist churches. Trying to understand what sets the SBC apart from the ABCUSA is one of my questions right now. I haven't delved very deeply into this question yet and I don't remember exactly what I googled that gave me your blog but it struck me as lucid and compassionate (a combination which could be more abundant online). And because I do come here to learn, in what I thought was a safe place, when you or your commenters write in ways that seem disparaging or unkind, I find it jarring.

Yes, I am holding you to a higher standard than most of the other stuff I find online. :) This may be unfair, but, frankly, thinking you wrote to a higher standard was the only reason I returned in this great morass of internet religious opinion.

Mark - I'm sitting here in a sort of shock over how unkindly you addressed Christiane. You said that you didn't mean to sound harsh but to this reader you did indeed.

Perhaps naively, I didn't read Christiane's questions as a debate but as questions. It is an interesting question, at least to this reader, how a body like the SBC determines what is heretical. I don't ask because I seek to disprove you or debate with you, I ask because I am curious. No doubt these questions are extremely elementary to you, but to reject them out of hand feels cruel.

I understand that your intention with this post is not to elucidate for the ignorant how the SBC determines doctrine, yet as a pastor, I would imagine you will have your train of thought derailed time and again by those who seek to understand your faith better. Such is the nature of life - and the internet!

I can see where perhaps Christiane feels confused about the SBC holding as firmly to doctrine as you have exhibited in this post. It feels to be counter to some of the originating anti-creedal ideals of the Baptist movement and what some readers might expect of Baptists. So perhaps what would be helpful would be an exploration of (or link to) the more recent history of how the SBC became so doctrinal. It can feel like a circuitous road to find members of the SBC referencing Tertullian. That isn't to critique the practice, but merely to suggest that such wondering might be met charitably rather than met as an attack.

Mark,

Thanks for blogging about this. I am happy to notice that Mr. Jones's name is no longer listed on the Pastors Conference web site. I am very thankful for this development.

From the traffic on Twitter tonight, it appears that, if a grudge persists over this event, it will be based upon the allegation that Jakes and Jones actually are Trinitarians and that they are being falsely accused based upon some sort of (uncharitable) inference.

Your blog post nicely reveals the available facts. The world has yet to hear Jakes utter the words "three persons" with regard to the Godhead. He's certainly had plenty of opportunity, but he has not done so. Carefully, explicitly, he has not done so. Instead, as you have noted, he has deliberately chosen the modalist language of manifestations.

I think that there are two possible understandings of Jakes. Either…

A. Jakes is barely and recently a Trinitarian, but he refrains from publicly using Trinitarian language in order to keep from offending non-Trinitarians. Jakes, according to this understanding, is someone who would like to help Trinitarians get over their insistence upon Trinitarianism, thereby bridging the divide between orthodox Christians and heretics. This is the most charitable interpretation of Jakes that is possible, and from a Christian perspective, it is not a very good outcome.

B. Jakes is a non-Trinitarian who has tried to find the most Trinitarian-sounding non-Trinitarian language that he can devise, because he's trying to broaden his empire to reach into Trinitarian territory as well as the non-Trinitarian territory in which he launched his ministry and which he naturally occupies.

This is not developed from inference at all—his own statements permit no understanding of his theology other than these two, as far as I can tell. It does take some measure of inference to decide which of these two is the actual case.

Neither scenario would make it appropriate for anybody connected with that so-called church to be a marquee name at the SBC Pastors Conference.

Mark,
Thanks for writing the letter! I appreciate not only your concern, but your action.

Christiane,
I believe you need to study Church History. Modalism (also known as Sabellianism and Monarchianism) was not "worked out" by the Church, but rejected as heretical, while the Church affirmed the three ecumenical creeds which are trinitarian. Speaking of the Church Fathers, you should read Tertullian in particular on the issue.

Mark,

Please keep us updated on what happens here.

Thanks,
Russ

I, too, have contacted them, and am awaiting a response. I hope they will respond honorably and change instrumental leaders.

This is not one we can compromise on. The Trinity is not negotiable.

Mark,

The Jesus of the modalist heresy is not the Christ of Scripture and is therefore no Christ at all. In the paradigm of theological "triage," there is no higher order issue.

I think this could be an important test of the extent to which Southern Baptists have embraced the atheological bent of contemporary evangelicalism. Praying we pass.

MJD

I was inspired to write an actual letter about this. I can't remember the last time I've done that. Let us hope this invitation is rescinded.

On what authority in the SBC is modalism condemned as a doctrinal error? Modalism is considered an error by traditional examination of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, but it was worked out by the Church, and written about by the Church Fathers.

I expect that the complexity of the Trinitarian Doctrine leads some easily into 'errors', but, if the sacred Scriptures are the sole authority on this determination by the SBC that modalism is in error,
A. What Scriptures?
B. How do Southern Baptists exegete those Scriptures?

Just to say Jakes is 'in error' due to belief in 'modalism', places the SBC in the position of relying on the traditional working out of the meaning of the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity,
and that cannot be what the SBC wants to project here, I am sure.

It would be more in line with the 'sola Scriptura' doctrine, if those in the SBC went directly to sacred Scripture, and explained their case against the Jakes people's 'modalism' from there, and not from the tradition of the early Church and the catholic councils.

That 'short cut' of referring to traditional Christian thinking as back-up for a case, is not a good precedent for Southern Baptists'
although it is a good thing that Southern Baptists and their scholars are looking into the thinking of the early Church, the Patristic writings (ante and post-Nicene), the early Creeds, and the Councils findings,
as that study of history of Christian doctrinal thought is something all theologians and Christian scholars should be aware of.

I hope this helps.

Mark,
I appreciate you taking the time to write this email. It bothers me, and should bother all Southern Baptists, that a heretic has been invited to lead worship at the SBC Pastors' Conference. It should be a big deal. I too emailed the leaders of the conference. I hope that many other SBC pastors and church members respond as well. I hope Mr. Jones is replaced. Keep on keeping on Mark.