Fractures in the Gospel Coalition?

Shayne,

I know how I'd answer, but what do you think?

My guess is the talk will die down and nothing will happen.

What should MacDonald do now? I’m not even sure. There’s an argument to be made for confrontation. There’s also an argument to be made for separation. If Jakes could be won over and would publicly teach orthodox Trinitarian views, that could be huge. If the discussion turns warm and fuzzy, “aren’t we all brothers in the end,” the damage could be irreparable–to everyone.

And Furtick is as bad as if not worse than Noble. Furtick has had sermon series entitled "Visionary Love, Dream Sex", "Bringing Sexy Back", and "All I Need to Know about Elevation Church I Learned from 80s Rock".

If IFBx = Independent Fundamental Baptists (extreme), then these guys are SSCx = Seeker-Sensitive Church (extreme).

It’s an honor for me to be a part of the Coalition. I’m often asking myself and sometimes others, “Why am I here?” I don’t feel any sense of entitlement to be a part, just gratitude to my Maker and my brethren for the opportunity to stand together in the Good News of our Savior King.

So, “No,” that is not a “vague threat.” I don’t threaten people, vague or otherwise. I’m speaking plainly.

The question of association with heretics raises the question about the viability of the coalition. Any coalition has to be held together either by what it’s for or by what it’s against. When that uniting force becomes ineffective you can no longer maintain the coalition. In our (TGC) case, we’re a coalition built upon and for the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. We all recognize differences on secondary matters, including ministry strategy matters. That’s not what our coalition is built upon. It’s built upon the gospel we all believe and cherish and are sworn to advance and protect. But in this case, we have a coalition member in a non-coalition activity appearing to embrace someone who denies the gospel–both on the issue of the Trinity and in his preaching of another gospel, the ‘prosperity gospel.’

That begs the question: How do members of The Gospel Coalition associate, endorse, “coalesce” beyond the official Coalition meetings themselves? What is our accountability to one another beyond TGC events, if any?

Debating an atheist on Nightline is another matter altogether. That’s contending for the faith in a context where the gospel needs to be inserted. Elephant room, until the revised description was published, was billed as a conversation between Christian brothers. That’s world’s apart from Paul on Mars Hill, Driscoll on Nightline, or any of us taking the gospel where it is not known.

Jakes surely is “more of a danger” because of the pseudo-gospel he maintains. And that’s why you don’t give him a bigger platform. You challenge privately, as many have been doing for years. Publicly, until there’s clear repentance and reformation in his teaching, you rebuke with all seriousness and you draw a distinction so no one is confused about the error.

One could ask, as Bradley does: Why not invite a White teacher from the Oneness background? It’s a good question. I think, though, at first blush, the answer isn’t in the ethnic/racial dynamics at play. If you read the bios for the invitees, with the exception of Mark Dever’s, most every bio lauds measures of outward “success.” Things like: “Church grew from 13 to 13,000.” “Pastors the 30,000 strong church.” Etc. So, Jakes is a draw because Jakes has a large audience. These are supposed to be successful pastors. It may be that a pragmatic, popularity-driven and numbers-focused perspective influenced the invitation.

No one has “publicly lynched” Jakes in this discussion. His teaching is a matter of public record. Nor has anyone used “quick handed judgment” or hasty rebuke in this case. I pasted in the article the section I wrote on Jakes back in 2007. I’ve been at this for at least those four years. There are many others with much greater access to Jakes who have tried privately to address him for far longer than those four years. There’s nothing “rushed” about this. Nor is there anything unfair about addressing it publicly. Here’s the rule of thumb in academic and other circles: If a person holds a view privately, you don’t publicly criticize or write about it. If the person teaches the view publicly, you may legitimately engage the debate publicly. Jakes’ teaching is public. And in accord with 1 Timothy 5, an elder or pastor in sin must be rebuked publicly. Engaging this issue in this way is consistent with the mandates of God’s holy word.

Looks like Dever is out of The Elephant Room. He is no longer listed as a speaker.

And now a public statement? It would seem to be in order due to the widespread publicity.