TD Jakes: Association Lacking Discernment?

Aside from the doctrinal issues with Jakes, which I take extremely seriously, Jakes in my opinion has some other issues---this is an article By Libby Copeland

Washington Post Staff Writer where she notes: "[That Jakes is] a man with a million-plus income, a breathtaking lakefront mansion and a preference for fine suits and cuff links. " http://www.trinityfi.org/press/tdjakes01.html

I can't reconcile how one can profit to this extreme from the "christian ministry," and the examples of Jesus and the Apostle Paul, who worked so that he would not be chargeable to those he ministered to. Paul would not allow others to say "see he only does it for profit."

Listen to Paul's remarks to young Timothy concerning falsie teachers:"To them [false teachers], a show of godliness is just a way to become wealthy" ( 1 Tim. 6:5).

I was baptized in the name of Jesus at a Oneness church. I would defend their tenets. Later in life, I left the Oneness church under pressure from evangelicals who stated no Oneness person could be saved. I joined a Trinitarian church. Now, I attend another ambiguously, but historically Oneness congregation that is very good friends with Bishop Jakes.

One thing I can state is I never understood the Trinity, be it at a Oneness or Trinitarian church. I would say I believed in the Trinity, but I could never properly understand it. I believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct (which an average Oneness person wouldn't say), but I can't see them as anything other than a manifestation. I see it HOW God has revealed Himself and not necessarily WHAT He is. Trinitarians would tell me, "Don't think about it. Just accept it." That's silly. If I have to believe it to be saved (and by saved, I mean accepted), then I want to understand it. They would explain it to me, but it was NO DIFFERENT than what I was explaining to them. They had no clue that Person was more than a manifestation. It was just confusing.

I recently got over feeling pressured to be Trinitarian, and just gave up. The concept of God I have is limited, and Trinitarians can condemn me to Hell all they want; I'll just treat them kindly. They cannot and will not have authority over my soul. The thing is many Trinitarians also hold my view of the Godhead.

That being said, I understand why Bishop Jakes is the way he is. I just find him a little deceptive about it because he tries to fit into both groups. However, he wasn't invited to the Elephant Room to discuss theology, but to discuss racial reconciliation.

Jay,

This post is not about debating the Trinity. Even James MacDonald agrees about the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity. You start off your comment asking about whether or not the doctrine of the Trinity is essential, yet you continue defending a position that is anti-Trinitarian. Even your comment demonstrates that whether your on the side of Oneness or Trinitarians that the doctrine of the Trinity is important.

Yes, the Trinity is an essential doctrine to being a Christian. I posit that TD Jakes knows that the Trinity is such an important doctrine that he will not come out and be crystal clear on what he believes about it.

Hmmm...I didn't know that not adhering to the trinity doctrine makes you a "non-Christian". Before that there were no real Christians? Something that is formed after a "Nicene Creed", or better yet, a controversial dogma on debate of who Jesus really is? Is it more controversy than love for one another? Yes. Is it more division than unity? Yes. No one can agree or incline to what the Word of God says. Continuing to accept things not according to the word of the Lord. Many create doctrines befit for them to believe in, and quite frankly it is not pleasing to the Lord God. "Trinity doctrine", "oneness doctrine". Whatever happen to "sound doctrine"?

Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

There are so many divisions caused because we cannot hold to the doctrine of Jesus Christ, which is "sound doctrine". It never stated in the Word of God to create doctrines, and hold fast to those. Never did it state that if we don't believe in the trinity that we are not saved, nor does even mention the word "trinity" at all. The prophets and apostles never taught this or mentioned it, so it must have been a mystery to them as well, huh?

1 Corinthians 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

1 Corinthians 1:19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Many profess to be wise, knowing nothing, and is foolishness to the Lord. Whatever is created after the written word of God is made a lie, damnable heresies by men who was never baptized "i.e. Constantine" or have been filled with the Holy Ghost. A lot of people have stopped following after Christ and went for what they think "makes sense" to them, not enduring to sound doctrine, and that this is according to what is in the Word of God.

1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

God in three persons? Seriously? If one truly wants to find this to be biblical, then one must "study to show thyself approved unto God". The greek word for "persons" the trinity doctrine refers to is "hypostasis". Being "spiritually led" God showed me is "HIS WORD", that the "only" scripture that mentions this greek text is in Hebrews.

Hebrews 1:3 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 on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

The word "person" is singular, NOT plural. It means substantial, nature, NOT distinct natures, or three distinct persons. Jesus Christ is the image of the "invisible" God, so that also concludes that God is not a person, but a Spirit according to John 4:24. Not cosubstantial, not coequal, nor coeternal. There is no biblical reference for these interpretations, or "heresies". Smh @ traditions of men, and the "rudiments" of this world. Prayer needs to go forth for all who have hardened their hearts to the word of God, and receive NOT the love of the truth, but choose the path of destruction because they lie in deceit...

I didnt know Jakes was a brother till James told me. I will ask James what i should call the Pope and the Dallai Lama. They too should come to the table of brotherhood.

"It surprises me that Driscoll is associated with something like this."

It should not surprise anybody who has been following what has been going on for the last four or five years. Driscoll cozies up to those who have bigger churches than his. You do not hear much about Piper from the Driscoll camp anymore. Piper's church is "smaller" than Driscoll's now and Driscoll has his sights on growing an empire. Piper doesn't matter anymore. He's small potatoes. Jakes is currently more popular than Driscoll and sells more books. More branding. More name recognition. That's why he is now a "friend" of Driscoll. Driscoll "cannot but help but constantly rank and evaluate whole categories and individuals on the basis of utility."

See: http://wenatcheethehatchet.blogspot.com/2011/06/friend-is-useful-at-all-times-and.html

Matt, I think the Bible is clear concerning how heretics are to be treated. Silent approval is not an option.

I think it's unorthodox to treat heretics as ministry peers, instead of as false teachers. Here's the Elephant Room's "Purpose" form their website: "The purpose of the Elephant Room is to model loving confrontation and gracious disagreement that honors relationship and allows diversity of opinion but stands without compromise on the revealed word of God. As Proverbs 27.17 instructs us that iron sharpens iron, so we want to sharpen each other for effective ministry. You’ll be stretched and challenged in your convictions while gaining practical insights from a variety of pastoral perspectives."

What does "stands without compromise on the revealed word of God" mean? I assume it at least means an orthodox view of the Trinity.

I'm cool with Driscoll preaching on the same platform as Jakes; however, I'm not cool with him bending Jakes' ear for practical insights. If Jakes is a modalist, then he's a heretic, and should not be treated as if he's orthodox. Why would we ask a heretic what he thinks about ministry? I think Jakes' view of the Trinity should have been nailed down before he was invited to participate in the Elephant Room. I don't know what "without compromise on the revealed word of God" means if the Trinity isn't essential.

I hope Driscoll and MacDonald prove me wrong; that Jakes is indeed a Trinitarian. Maybe this is Jakes' official "coming out of the closet" even? But, what about his prosperity gospel then? Should we bend the ears of prosperity preachers for practical insight?

BTW: I've enjoyed Driscoll for years; however, as of late, he seems a little nutty with his continuationism.

Jared Moore,

Just because someone associates with someone who isnt orthodox doesnt make that person unorthodox. If I hold orthodox views, than I am orthodox- even if I assoaciate with someone who isnt. Driscoll does hold orthodox views, therefore, he is orthodox. Being orthodox doesnt have anything to do with who you associate with- it has to do with what you believe.

Mark,

This is the struggle I have, this next line makes me think Jakes believes in the Trinity: "I believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. I believe that they are three Persons."

Now, just because a dude wrote books on the Trinity says "it isnt enough" doesnt mean anything to me. Here is why I am glad Jakes will be at the Elephant Room- I think he will get called out and have to clearly answer where he stands on the Trinity.

I have read several quotes that were "Oneness" and several that made him seem Trinitarian- and it does say something to me that his more Trinitarian comments were his more recent ones.

All I am saying is this- at best we have confusion. I can not say the man is Trinitarian and I can also not say that he isn't. The evidence is mixed. I think he will have to answer clearly at The Elephant Room. Too many men in that room care to much about truth to let Jakes leave without getting clarity on the Trinity.

Oh yeah, and I hope someone takes him to the woodshed with his views on money- same goes for MacDonald on that one.

Victoria, thank you. I'm glad (or I hope) that the "how" continues to improve.

Thanks Mark-great article. I appreciate how you said what you said.

I want to point out how Jakes sidetracks the host's doctrinal questions from the very beginning. The host used the word "connections" concerning Jakes affiliation with Oneness folks. Jakes takes that one, undefined word, which is the host's word not necessarily the critics' word, and takes the conversation down a rabbit trail.

Scott Ferguson, you said a lot in your comment. I don't have time to reply now, but I will say that you offered assertions and equivocations. You also seemed to have taken an all of nothing strategy concerning doctrine in this particular situation. Your guilt by association charge does not hold up and if you'd go back and read the Scriptural context versus the one for the proposed ER2 it should be apparent.

Did you even read my concerns? Did you read the Elephant Room website's "about" page?

Brian, my jets are cooled. I hope you did not get another impression from the article. Have any of the leaders you mentioned ever publicly spoken about Jakes' position on the Trinity? As I recall, Driscoll has been a participant at a conference where Jakes was also a participant. I hope you're right that these guys will address Jakes on the Trinity, but just hoping and asserting won't make it so.

These guys may not give a rip what I say and that's sad. But someone will care and consider what's been written here. It's a shame that will all of the marketing and appeal used in promoting something like ER that my views as a potential customer, and more importantly as a Christian, will probably not be considered.

Even though it's called Elephant Room it still has a set of standards for those who are invited and it is not a free for all.

Joe, I hope the article caues a firestorm that lights the way rather than flares tempers. I agree that Jakes needs to be clear on his position and distance himself from Oneness folks.

RazorSharpTruth, I hear you about inviting heretics to ER. The problem though is that ER does have a position statement that does not seem to allow heretics to be invited. Since Jakes was invited and defended I question whether or not direct doctrinal questions concerning the Trinity will be asked.

Bill O'Neill, unfortunately, I have had the same observation that it is becoming against some unwritten law to biblically push-back against particular, well-known leaders. I agree with Tim that Ephesians 4:15 and James 1:19 have application before pushing the send button. I would add that those verses also apply no matter how well known you are. Thanks for the kind words.

I think there are at least 2 issues here that are getting conflated into 1.

First is the issue that he's a pastor/bishop with a currently errant view of the Trinity (as defined by Nicea) and is presumably teaching others that view. Second is the strong implication (if not outright accusation) that by holding a view of the Trinity different from that as defined by Nicea, this prevents him from being a true a Christian at all.

It is this 2nd issue that concerns me about all the criticism. What I'm getting out of all the critics so far (I've read Johnson & Trueman) is an implication (if not veiled assertion) that every single solitary true Christian before Nicea held the "perfect" Nicean view of the Trinity. Or, to put it another way, there were no real Christians before the Nicean formulation of the Trinity because only real Christians hold to that view.

Here are some questions I asked myself about this topic: Which biblical doctrines concerning the Godhead are essential for salvation? Did I (or anyone) come to salvation with a perfectly articulated Nicean view of the Trinity? Is a Nicean view of the Trinity a biblical prerequisite for salvation (or justification, sanctification, glorification)? Are there any examples of those who might really be saved who might not have held to the NTV (e.g. the thief on the cross)? What about O.T. saints: was their theology one of richly developed Nicean Trinitarianism?

I'm not defending Jakes, or denying Nicean Trinitarianism. I just think we're being way to narrow in our scope of even just simple biblical history & doctrine to throw Jakes out of Christendom on this topic alone (there may be other reasons, but I'm not going there).

Others object to MacDonald having Jakes to the discussion table because of guilt by association. That sounds familiar: "Then Levi hosted a grand banquet for Him at his house. Now there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others who were guests a with them. But the Pharisees and their scribes were complaining to His disciples, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?"." (Lu. 5:29-30 HCSB) If the stated purpose of The Elephant Room is as MacDonald & Driscoll say, then why would they not invite someone with a different (even errant) view? Mark Dever is supposed to be there too (he may change his mind, but as of yesterday he's on the schedule). Is Dever "lacking discernment" & now guilty of fraternizing with the "enemy" b/c he shows up at the same venue as Jakes!? (I can hear the dull "Uhhhh...") So, if the pasta won't stick to Dever, why should it stick to MacDonald or Driscoll? And, as pastors and teachers, they have a biblical command to instruct others who are errant in the Truth, don't they? That can take years -- decades even, maybe. Some will object that this sort of correction should be done in private. But that's a *preference*. There's no biblical *mandate* that this correction/teaching be done behind closed doors, in a small group, or any other close setting.

I've been a professing Christian for more than 35 years. But just in the past 2 years I've had to re-think my view of a strictly limited atonement in both scope & intent (helpful history at http://calvinandcalvinism.com regarding the varied orthodox viewS if anyone is interested). Also, I grew up with a Dispensational slant on the end times, but have changed over time to one of Historical Premil.

What I'm getting at is this: is there no room in our sanctification and maturing for growth, instruction, learning, understanding, and working through theology? You know, moving from milk to meat? Just asking.

@Brian
If for some reason your comment was in some way a response to mine; I just wanted to assure you that I did watch ER.

Did anyone even watch the first elephant room? It was very invasive at times. Do you really think that with MacDonald, Driscoll, Graham and Dever there that they're just gonna skip this topic? There is a reason its called the elephant room. Why dont you just cool your jets, watch the thing, and THEN make some observations about the elephant room? Besides, do you think any of those guys give a rip what you and your readers think? I'll give you a hint... no.

Great article, Mark. Thank you. All I can add to the thread is there is a seemingly growing push-back with greater impunity against people who challenge professed believers in high visibility roles. "How dare you?" seems less and less out of place within a "Let's all have a 'conversation'" evangelical community.

We had the pleasure of hearing Tim Challies speak last weekend at the Psalm 119 Conference in Boston at which he reminded us that the Ephesians 4:15 and James 1:19 have application in executing messages via a 'send' button, too. He also pointed out that technology, such as it is, also enables the discerning Christian to faithfully defend the Truth and expose error when the matter is a public one, beyond the aegis of the local and visible church.

Thanks again, for your review of this important matter.

With something like the ER I see no problems in inviting even the rankest of heretics. a) they would be openly exposed b) they may be confronted with their error and turn from it.

The ER is appealing to the flesh for the most part sadly....unless things change it is not really the most edifying experience.....

What is wrong, inviting guys like TD Jakes and then defending them in some way.

James MacDonald just keeps slipping away from somebody I found credible. His defense of Perry Noble (re: Did Perry Noble Lie?) was absurd. His video with Mark Driscoll and Mark Dever was just sooo full of ego (except for Dever).

Bring on ER2, wait.....don't.

Considering the dust up when his music guy was going to lead at some SBC function ("How DARE you question whether Jakes is a modalist!!!!") I imagine your article here will light quite the firestorm. Here's the deal--until Jakes is willing to come out and state in no uncertain terms that he is a Trinitarian using Trinitarian language AND declaring Oneness pentalcostal modalism (or whatever it's called) to be a heresy AND declaring that those who hold to Oneness theology are not Christians then people shouldn't scratch their heads and whine about how people are so picky about doctrine. If he has abandoned this heresy, he needs to make that clear.

Jared, thank you. I'm surprised too. I really am.

Reg, Jakes' prosperity preaching is another concern. It is a concern that two Southern Baptists wrote about in a recently published book. I just thought that the Trinitarian issue is much more important. (Not that you disagree.)

Bad enough he was invited at all concerning his obscure trinitarian stand but he also has links to prosperity gospel foolishness. MacDonald and Driscoll are losing creditability as far as I'm concerned. Oh wait Driscoll will read Jakes mind and give him the thumbs up . Sad really.

Mark, this is an outstanding article. It surprises me that Driscoll is associated with something like this. He's been orthodox up to this point it seems.