Fractures in the Gospel Coalition?

[Greg Long] I wonder if Dever feels the same way?

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

http://www.theelephantroom.com/

Here’s the Oct 1 version.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:MzwcQEYA3EoJ:www.t…

Shaynus, that’s a great catch. Thanks for sharing.

Anyabwile has made some more interesting comments in the discussion. Here:

[10-01, 10:15 AM] 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?

[10-01, 10:50 AM] 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.

[10-02, 12:24 PM] 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.

[10-02, 7:28 AM] 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.

I’ve read the recent “Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism,” and this is an interesting test case of how closely the ideology of conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists actually is. Thabiti is talking like a fundamentalist here, and I’m proud of his courage and wisdom.

BTW, I didn’t make the “catch” without some help. :-)

[Shaynus]

[Greg Long] I wonder if Dever feels the same way?

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.

Good for Dever. It doesn’t surprise me. I’m still disappointed in MacDonald, though.

[Don Johnson]

[Shaynus]

[Greg Long] I wonder if Dever feels the same way?

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.

I kind of agree Don, but then he didn’t promote his own role in the Elephant Room. I would say, while it would be good if Dever said something, it also forces MacDonald to explain a sudden disappearance of a guest. I’m sure he’ll say something at some point, but he doesn’t really have a regular blog and it just isn’t his style to say everything about everything.

That’s carefully worded.

No kidding David. You think he’s going to say that Jakes isn’t coming, but then… he doesn’t. Jakes is still coming, but just as the one lone heretic? Creepy strange.

I wasn’t impressed with the statement. Here’s the bullet point version of his post:

*I’ve taken a lot of criticism for this.
*A lot of people have given me a lot of feedback, and I was overly harsh in the way I spoke.
*I wasn’t clear enough in explaining what was going on, but we’ve decided to expand our format to just about anyone who will sharpen iron.
*We are not neglecting African Americans in our quest for sharpening, but are very committed to engaging them in our presentations.
*Thank you for the feedback and criticism; we’re going to take some of it to heart.
*Please wait until the Elephant Room is over before you start saying that this will be of no value.

You know what he didn’t talk about? All the main points of the criticism that he’s received and claims to acknowledge!

*TD Jakes is a modalist, or at the very least preaches a modalist message.
*that the thrust of the complaints about this invite has nothing to do with Jakes’ skin color or some kind of ancillary doctrine - the Trinity is a critical doctrine to a proper understanding of God. If Jakes is a modalist, he’s a heretic.
*If he is a heretic, then he should have never been invited in the first place.
*The whole idea of the Elephant Room is for believers to sharpen believers, not to engage with anyone who will ‘sharpen one another’.
*That Mark Dever has already dropped out, and that other prominent participants and Cons. Evangelicals are telling him that Jakes is a heretic.

So color me unimpressed with what I see as damage control, not an acknowledgement of wrongdoing or even an error in judgment.