Sola Sisters

T.D. Jakes: Through a Glass Blurrily

2012-01-30T22:54:00.001-05:00

By Marcia Montenegro (Christians Answers For The New Age)

“But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. Many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of the truth will be maligned; and in their greed they will exploit you with false words; their judgment from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.” 2 Peter 2:1-3

The Trinitarian God is revealed in God’s word and has been confessed by Christians throughout the centuries. And during that time, the Trinity has also been attacked and denied by many. Satan is always assailing the nature of God with a multitude of false teachings and heresies. The early anti-Trinitarians, such as Arius and Sabellius, were condemned as heretics.

MODALISM

Anti-Trinitarian beliefs are many and often differ drastically from each other. There are even variations within the same views. Modalism is only one of these anti-trinitarian teachings, and is also called “Oneness.” It is the belief that, instead of three Persons in the Godhead, God has three “modes:” Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Modalists also use the word “manifestations.” A common statement of belief about God on the website of Oneness churches is that God “manifests as God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.” What is meant by this is that God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are but three aspects of one God; they are not co-existent. Jesus was the human side of God the Father, who is spirit. Modalism is, technically speaking, a unitarian view of God; that is, unitarian as opposed to Trinitarian.

Modalism is not always expressed the same way. For example, a modalist may not necessarily use the term “modes” or the label “modalist.”

T. D. JAKES, THE “BISHOP”

T. D. Jakes (born 1957) has been known as a modalist or “Oneness” minister. There is a lot of information supporting Jakes’ modalism, including the statement about God on his church’s website that uses the classic modalistic phrase about God in three manifestations. Jakes, who has no theological training, preached his first sermon at 19; was “licensed as a minister in the Church” at 20; and at age 23, planted his first church in West Virginia, a Oneness church (quote and other information from the Potter House website here).

Jakes' title of “Bishop” comes from the Higher Ground Always Abounding Assemblies (HGAAA), a network of Oneness Pentecostal churches. This title was given in recognition of his position as a prelate of this organization. According to the HGAAA website, Jakes gave several talks in 2011 sponsored by HGAAA and is listed as a speaker at this year’s upcoming “24th Annual Holy Convocation” in June 2012. His is listed in the HGAAA Directory as Vice-Prelate.

Jakes was invited this past January to be a speaker at a revival called Code Orange, held at a large evangelical church in Charlotte, NC, called Elevation, pastored by Steve Furtick. This event was disturbing for many Christians because Jakes, as a known Oneness follower, denies an essential of the faith and cannot be considered a brother in Christ. Furtick may have thought that Jakes had become a Trinitarian. However, if that had been the case, then it should have been announced. To give Jakes, a non-Trinitarian, a platform in a church violates 2 John 7-11.

THE ELEPHANT ROOM INTERVIEW

Not long after Code Orange, on Jan. 25, Jakes was the guest in what is called the “Elephant Room” (this is a meeting/interview event that has been somewhat controversial due to various reasons) to be interviewed by a well known Reformed pastor, James MacDonald, and pastor Mark Driscoll. MacDonald, in fact, had recently resigned from the Gospel Coalition, a group of Reformed pastors, due to disagreement over his invitation of Jakes to the Elephant Room (known this year as ER2).

This is the only transcript available at this point of the Elephant Room dialogue with Jakes.

My brief comments on this available interview (James MacDonald has posted on his blog that he had decided not to release the full transcript) follow.

Unclear/ambivalent statements by Jakes are bracketed by ==, followed by my comments:

==“But how they describe and explain the Godhead in a traditional oneness sense is very, very different from how Trinitarians describe the gospel.”==

COMMENT: This raises the question: Does this mean that Jakes thinks only the verbal description differs?

==“He is one God who expressed Himself in a plurality of ways.”==

COMMENT: This is a modalist statement.

==“There are distinctives between the working of the Holy Spirit - the moving of the Holy Spirit - and the work of Christ.”===

COMMENT: This is also modalist language. To express a distinction in the "workings" or functions of Jesus and the Holy Spirit indicates a difference in the operations of Jesus and the Spirit, not a distinction in the Persons. He has a similar statement later about God and the "workings" of the Son.

==“I don’t think anything that any of us believes fully describes who God is. And if we would ever humble down to admit that we in our finite minds cannot fully describe an infinite God.”==

COMMENT: Actually, God has revealed himself clearly as a Trinitarian God. Jakes in the past has used this ruse of how nobody can really know God, implying that a discussion of the Trinity is either unimportant or impossible. However, we can describe God according to what God has revealed to us about himself.

==“Three Persons. One God – Three Persons, . ..[ . . .] . . . I am not crazy about the word persons this is…most people who follow me know that that is really. My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except the word…”==

Driscoll: “manifestations”

Jakes: ==“Manifest instead of persons. Which you describe as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline.”==

COMMENT: It looks possibly like Jakes is equating "Persons" with "manifestations." If so, we are back to square zero with Jakes and the Trinity. Also, it is not “Pauline” to say God manifests as three persons. Jakes and other Oneness followers, in an effort to bolster their stance, point to scriptures such as 1 Tim. 2:10 and 3:16, Heb. 9:8, and 1 John 3:5 where the word “manifest” means to “appear” or “disclose.” However, these scriptures and the use of the word “manifest” in them have nothing to do with a belief that God is a being who takes on the role of three beings.

==“I think that it is important that we realize that there are distinctives between the Father and the working of the Son. The Father didn’t bleed, the Father didn’t die, only a different person in Jesus Christ…is coming back for us in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is with us, but only indwells us through the person of the Holy Spirit; we are baptized into the body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. I don’t think any of that is objectionable to any of the three of us. So that is consistent with my belief system.”==

COMMENT: A modalist could say that the Father didn’t bleed because he (he Father) was in the role of Jesus at the time of the cross, so it was Jesus who bled. So this is no affirmation of the Trinity. Also, saying that one is baptized “into the body of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit” could be said by a modalist. It is unclear what Jakes means by this. Is he referring to water baptism, which Oneness Pentecostals believe is necessary for salvation?

==“I’m with you. I have been with you. I teach/preach that all the time. There are many people within and outside quote unquote denominations labeled Oneness that would describe that the same way. There are some that would not. But when we get to know people by their labels, then comes all the baggage of how we define that label.”==

COMMENT: Jakes says that he's been teaching this all along! Yes, he has been teaching modalism all along. Jakes has never been on record affirming or teaching the Trinity; in fact, he has reacted negatively to questioning on the topic. If anything, this is an admission to Oneness beliefs. He also plainly states that Oneness is not really different from Trinitarian, or at least he wants it to sound that way. He is also back to the “description” remark because for Jakes, it seems to be just a semantics issue. That is what he has said in the past about the difference between Trinitarian and non-Trinitarian views.

==“I still have fellowship, associations, relationship, and positions within and without Trinitarian and Onenness movements.”==

COMMENT: A Trinitarian can have a friendship, but not fellowship, with Oneness followers and modalists. Fellowship is only within the body of Christ. This statement is very revealing and indicates Jakes still doesn't get it, or is trying to blur the line between modalism and Trinitarianism, something many believe he has been doing for years.

IF…..

If Jakes has truly become Trinitarian, then he needs to relinquish his title of “Bishop,” make a clean break with the HGAAA, clearly affirm and teach the Trinity to his church, and renounce modalism. Jakes has been misleading his flock with false teaching for years (this includes the Word of Faith and prosperity gospel, which is another deeply problematic issue). I certainly allow for a small possibility of Jakes’ conversion to the true God, but until these outward evidences, we cannot declare Jakes a Trinitarian.

This event, judging by some defending the claim that Jakes is now a Trinitarian, has revealed either a crack in the knowledge about the Trinity amongst some Christian leaders, and/or an apathy to the Trinity. But if Christians do not get the nature of God right, we cannot truly preach the gospel. Like sheep, we tend to stray.

A reaffirmation of the Trinity and more teaching on it in churches would be a good result of this rather depressing affair. There is no salvation in modalism; it is false. Therefore, this is of utmost important because this is a salvation issue.

There is a link to the Athanasian Creed at the end of the links below. Please read it if you have never read it before.

RESOURCES

On the Jakes Interview:

Excellent interview of former Oneness pastor Jordan Dayoub who gives his views on Jakes, and whose insights are extremely instructive on this issue

Informative remarks by Daniel Neades on modalism, the Trinity, and the interview with T. D. Jakes, and why Jakes’ remarks are troubling

Minister Voddie Baucham who was invited to the ER2 interview with Jakes, on why he declined and why later he withdrew from speaking at a men’s conference sponsored by James MacDonald

On T. D. Jakes:

Concerns About the Teaching of T.D. Jakes

CARM - T.D. Jakes Articles

On the Trinity:

CARM - The Trinity

CARM - Early Trinitarian Quotes

Watchman.org (Put the word Trinity in search box at this link and links will come up to several articles)

On Oneness:

Watchman - Oneness-Pentecostalism

On Sabellianism and Modalism:

Basic Theology - Sebellianism

Got Questions? - Sebellianism - Modalism - Monarchianism

Sabellianism: Third and Twentieth Century Heresy

Basic Theology - Modalism

CARM - Modalism

Helpful Illustrations of Modalism

"Oneness Doctrine" (Jesus Only) vs. Trinitarianism

The Athanasian Creed, which affirms the Trinity

All That TBN Stuff Is Real, Right?

2012-01-30T11:56:00.004-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack (with thanks to Daniel Neades)

From the 1972 Academy award winning documentary Marjoe, about the life of evangelist Marjoe Gortner. (NOTE: Some offensive language)

Oneness Pentecostalism, and How "Evil" Isn't Always Obvious

2012-01-30T10:05:00.001-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack and Cathy Mathews (with thanks to Ken Silva at Apprising Ministries)

In light of the uproar over the acceptance of Oneness Modalist T.D. Jakes as a keynote speaker during the Elephant Room's recent gathering, we're posting the videos below which feature a debate held in 1985 between Christian apologetics writer Dr. Walter Martin and Oneness Pentecostal pastor Nathaniel Urshan and Robert Sabin. We would like to also point out the curious fact that, in our experience, many of our fellow Christians don't seem to understand that they can be deceived, and that in fact, the Bible gives warning after warning after warning to Christians to take care that they are not deceived. And that's perhaps one of the most peculiar characteristics of deception.......it doesn't feel like deception. Well, isn't that kind of the whole point of deception? It's not called "Parading In Waving A Flag Stating Its Evil Intent," now is it?

For the record. Deception, by its nature, is designed to confuse, to trick, to ensnare, though in its outward appearance it will often appear beguiling. And when deception happens, let's be discerning enough to recognize that it's not going to be like in the movies: Green smoke won't start oozing under the door and spooky music won't start playing. Heretics will typically not be foaming at the mouth, hostile and half- crazy, charging in and demanding that everyone immediately renounce Christianity. In fact, heretics will often be gentlemanly, likable chaps, and will quote plenty of Scripture, as evidenced in the videos below. You can witness this type of reasoning in the transcript of Session #7 of the Elephant Room 2, where James MacDonald discusses initially being concerned about Bill Hybels, Mark Driscoll, and Steven Furtick; but he explains that once he talks with them and realizes they are all swell, likable guys, all concern is gone. Apparently the same thing happened concerning T.D. Jakes. In our opinion, ER2 misnamed this particular breakout session "We Can Work It Out;" when instead (and still staying with the hip and culturally savvy Beatles motif) that session should have been rightfully named "All You Need Is Love." Does it not seem like the visible church has made the same decision, that "All you need is love"? That nobody can or should challenge doctrine? And that we should all, in the name of "love," rush pell mell into false unity with heretics?

Fellow Christians, please suit up in your spiritual armor, and please take to heart the many scriptural warnings against being deceived. Niceness is not our measure for truth, God's Word is. Whatever is claimed or taught in the name of God must always be held up to the actual Word of God, and studied in context. Let's remember that when Satan tempted Jesus in the desert, he did not make up lies....no, he quoted straight Scripture. Only, the Scripture was taken out of context.

Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” (Satan, quoting from Psalm 91:11,12)

Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:5-7)

(NOTE: The videos above are only 4 segments of a 27 part series. The rest of the series can be found on YouTube.)

Additional Resources

Interview With A Former Oneness Pastor

Carl Trueman and the Elephant Room

A Measured Response to Bryan Crawford Loritts' Request for the Reformed Community to “Repent” of their Criticism of T.D. Jakes File This One Under "Oh, The Irony...."

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

Elephant Room Security on Lookout For Dangerous Persons Elephant Room II: May We Now Regard T.D. Jakes As Trinitarian and Orthodox?

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

ER2 Q&A with a Former Oneness Pastor

2012-01-30T09:12:00.000-05:00

Article by Richard Barcellos (reprinted with permission, Grace Reformed Baptist Fellowship)

I (Richard Barcellos) have invited my friend Jordan Dayoub to answer some questions about the recent Elephant Room 2 discussion between T. D. Jakes, Mark Driscoll, and James MacDonald. There are two reasons why I chose to do this: first, there are some folks in our church-plant with Oneness Pentecostal backgrounds and second, Jordan is a former Oneness pastor. So, here it goes.

RB: Jordan, can you describe your history with Oneness Pentecostalism?

JD: I was born into the movement. My parents were hippies in Los Angeles during the 1960s (my father raised a Roman Catholic and my mother born and raised a Jew), met a Oneness Pentecostal minister, embraced the theology in 1968, and started attending a Oneness congregation in South Los Angeles. The year I was born my father was ordained as a minister in the church we attended. At 18 years old I felt the call to preach and teach, attended Bible College and was later licensed as a minister in the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (PAW). My wife and four children were discipled in the movement as well. We were very involved. My father planted a church and I became his youth pastor and eventually took over as the senior pastor. Like many heterodox groups, we believed we alone had the true gospel.

RB: How and why did you get out of it?

JD: Oneness Pentecostals refer to themselves as Apostolics and teach that the movement is a faithful representation of ante-Nicene apostolic Christianity. I began to study church history and historical theology and it became evident this claim was false. Our view on the godhead, expressed by sects like the Modalists, was roundly condemned by the early church. From that point forward I started earnestly praying for truth. The Holy Spirit led me to books, magazines, and publications by faithful orthodox and reformed theologians.

RB: What was it like believing what you had been taught (and what you taught) for so many years was wrong and what did you do once you came to orthodox convictions about the Trinity and other matters?

JD: Revolting from the Oneness movement and embracing biblical orthodoxy was complex. My initial reaction was a deep feeling of betrayal. On the one hand, I felt I was betrayed by the pastors and leaders who should have known and taught me better, I felt I was lied to. On the other hand, I felt I was betraying all that I had ever known, believed, and loved. There were family, friends, and
close relationships at stake. There was quite a bit of cognitive dissonance going on. I didn’t start with the Trinity. I first dealt with the idea of grace alone and the implications of the five solas. The Oneness understanding of the godhead (that God is not personified but manifest in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and that God really is just one person who takes on different modes) was the sacred cow and I avoided it at first. I dared not remove it without a firm grip on the alternative. It was difficult but once I saw how biblical the doctrine of the Trinity was, I also realized how unbiblical and false Oneness theology was.

RB: Did you hear (or read) the discussion on the doctrine of the Trinity between T. D. Jakes, Mark Driscoll, and James MacDonald and what was your over-all impression of that discussion?

JD: I read the article and even saw a clip on YouTube. Here’s the problem. Driscoll and MacDonald let him expound on his own views and experiences and I know it was in a spirit of love. What they’re unable to detect, because they’re unfamiliar, is the ecumenical smokescreen that big-time prosperity preachers like Jakes put up because he really cares nothing for theology. If you listen closely, his entire discourse is centered on denominational identities and bridging the divide. He says he was Metho-Baptist-Pentecostal because of his upbringing. He sees theology simply as petty divisions among varying tribes of Christian sects. Because he sees himself as a ‘bridge builder’, doctrine is merely semantics among those who profess Christ. He told them he believed in ‘God in three persons’ but never called himself a Trinitarian. His position today is exactly what it was 15 years ago – vague.

RB: Do you think it’s important to contextualize T. D. Jakes’ ER2 statements or should we take him at face-value, infusing meaning acceptable to the orthodox position on the Trinity into what he said? What I’m getting at is this: Do you think knowing what you know about Jakes and Oneness theology helps you understand him better than others might be able to who have no long history in his thought-world?

JD: Coming from the movement myself, I can understand this man’s words in ways most people can’t. There are two types of Oneness Pentecostals. There are the hardcore, doctrinally dogmatic types who care nothing for popularity or mega-church growth. These openly assert Oneness theology and declare the doctrine of the Trinity as heresy (from their viewpoint) and an aberration of
the apostles’ doctrine. They are not out to make friends but win people over to what they see as the true gospel. They are genuine and sincere though totally wrong and if ever converted they would make great Trinitarians. The other type (like Jakes) have adopted the seeker-sensitive approach which really guides all that they do. They are out to be successful, sell books, buy TBN time slots, and gain a national following. They see success as the end-game which justifies any and all means. That model is above all things, including truth or doctrinal purity. They see their small Oneness church pastor colleagues and know that it is precisely Oneness doctrine that keeps their congregations from growing and decide to abandon theology altogether. Anything that divides people they avoid no matter how central a tenet of Christian doctrine it is. They become de facto prosperity preachers because weak Christians enjoy hearing man-centered sermons that speak to their itching ears.

RB: Do you think asking for definitions of words like “manifest” and “person” is important and why in the case of Jakes?

JD: By insisting to use the word “manifest” instead of “person” he was able to save face with his large Oneness following. It was an important distinction made that his interviewers could not appreciate.

RB: What questions would you have liked the ER2 men to ask Jakes on the Trinity?

JD: If you are a Trinitarian, why don’t you teach it to your congregation seeing it is so central to Christian dogma? You said your understanding of the godhead has been in transition, when you finally reach the end of your journey of understanding regarding the Trinity, will you openly teach it and renounce modalism as false like the early church did? Are you willing to risk losing members for that truth? Those are the questions I would have asked.

RB: Do you think they should have asked him questions about the prosperity gospel?

JD: Yes. In the last 20 years, Oneness churches have witnessed the tremendous successes of the prosperity gospel movement and largely adopted their mode of operation. In many scenarios they have effectively merged the two but the latter has swallowed up the former. T. D. Jakes’ unorthodox view on the godhead is just the tip of the iceberg. He is a prosperity preacher through and through. Men like Jakes see theological nuance as labels and baggage. He, along with many other successful mega-church CEO pastors, play both sides of the fence because it’s expedient and he doesn’t want to alienate anyone and that’s what he sees as valuable, not identifying absolute truth and exposing false doctrine.

RB: Assuming the best and that Jakes now affirms the orthodox view of the Trinity, if you were Mark Driscoll would you have asked him if he was going to publically recant for teaching damning heresy for so long?

JD: Yes. If he truly affirms an orthodox view of the Trinity, he must repent of his former teaching. The two views are totally incompatible.

RB: Elaborate on the practical implications of moving from modalism to the orthodox view in terms of Jakes’ church and world-wide impact. In other words, what would you do if you were T. D. Jakes and you now hold to the orthodox view of the Trinity after confusing so many people for such a long time?

JD: If I were Jakes, I would start to teach the Bible. That may sound like an oversimplification but men like Jakes may use the Bible every Sunday but don’t really teach it. I would start there.

RB: Comment on the following tweet I saw the other day: “The way Jakes played MacDonald & Driscoll, you could say Bishop took two pawns.” Why do you think the tweeter said that?

JD: Jakes quickly neutralized their objective questions with a bit of reverse psychology. MacDonald and Driscoll, who came to ER2 thinking the issue was doctrine, were very quickly routed by the Bishop, and before long they were talking about unity. It is always tempting to abandon our pursuit of doctrinal purity for church unity.

RB: On your Face Book page, you said, “Jakes’ chair was certainly no hot seat for he is an expert in vagueness and unfortunately they were charmed by his charisma.” Explain what you mean.

JD: He has capitalized on his cult of personality. His speaking skills, social diplomacy, and celebrity status can be overwhelming. He is a master at saying a lot without saying a lot. He is also a very likable fellow and the 30,000 Texans who make up his congregation are proof that theological ambiguity can fill a church building. I have been to conventions where he was the main speaker and have seen multitudes swoon over him. Driscoll and MacDonald were easy pickings.

RB: What would you say to folks who may be confused about ER2 and the discussion with Jakes?

JD: It may come as a surprise but men like T. D. Jakes are not epistemologically self-conscious. By that I mean that they spend so much time on motivating speech and platitudes that they’ve given very little time or thought to expound why they believe what they believe. They have reduced their doctrinal expressions to harmless sound-bytes intended to offend the least amount of people possible, and this is why he could neither call himself a Trinitarian nor fully renounce Oneness.

RB: Jordan, thanks so much for taking the time to answer my questions. This has been very helpful.

JD: You’re very welcome.

RB: I plan on posting a brief piece on the Trinity tomorrow.

Additional Resources

A Measured Response to Bryan Crawford Loritts' Request for the Reformed Community to “Repent” of their Criticism of T.D. Jakes

Carl Trueman and the Elephant Room

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

Elephant Room Security on Lookout For Dangerous Persons

Elephant Room II: May We Now Regard T.D. Jakes As Trinitarian and Orthodox?

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

A Measured Response to Bryan Crawford Loritts' Request for the Reformed Community to “Repent” of their Criticism of T.D. Jakes

2012-01-28T08:45:00.004-05:00

Article by Daniel Neades (reprinted in full with permission from the Better Than Sacrifice blog)

In a piece entitled, ‘Reformed Crowd Asked to Repent for Attacking TD Jakes’, the Christian Post reports that Elephant Room participant, Bryan Crawford Loritts, is ‘asking the Reformed community to “repent” of their harsh criticism and one-sided attacks on Bishop T.D. Jakes in regards to his beliefs about the Godhead’.

The Post reports:

To the adjunct professor at Crichton College, those “gospel centered” people elevated love for doctrine over love for people. His words for them were this: “Your conduct is out of step with the gospel,” referring to Apostle Paul’s words to Peter in Galatians 2 when he avoided the Gentiles only when he was around the Jews.

Loritts has apparently failed to understand that it is because we love people – including T.D. Jakes himself – that we want to be sure that they are neither inadvertently trusting in a non-Trinitarian god of their own imagination, nor being deceived by a false prosperity gospel, such as the one Jakes preaches. Loritts uncharitably judges the inward thoughts and intents of his opponents.

Revealingly, in his application of Galatians 2, Loritts has cast himself as the Apostle Paul. Some might think that his seeming lack of concern for the integrity of the Gospel better suits him to the role of Peter.

Loritts also advised the “middle aged white Reformed guys” to be extremely careful of the messages they sent, both implicit and explicit.

The age and skin colour of those questioning Jakes’ beliefs and teaching is irrelevant. In fact, those men and women expressing concern represent a broad spectrum of the Church, including Baptists and Confessional Lutherans, as well as the Reformed. Loritts here is merely engaging in an ad hominem attack, mischaracterizing the Elephant Room’s many opponents as originating from a narrow clique. He also sows the utterly unfounded idea that latent racism may be motivating those with whom he disagrees. This disgraceful tactic merely highlights the intellectual and doctrinal poverty of his own diaphanous arguments.

The Post continues:

Though he was not accusing anyone of racism, he found that the “Reformed crowd’s” actions (refusing to come to the Elephant Room event or having an honest dialogue) sent an implicit message to the public – “theological bigotry.”

If Loritts is not accusing anyone of racism, why does he even mention it? Again, he is transparently engaged in the desperate antics of those feeling the quicksand of their own position rapidly dissolve beneath their own feet.

Loritts also seems to have conveniently forgotten that independent apologists endeavoured to attend the Elephant Room but, despite having reserved tickets in advance, were refused entry and, in one case, even threatened with arrest. It is the organizers of the Elephant Room who have proven themselves unwilling to engage in honest dialogue. And, by his baseless personal attacks, Loritts himself demonstrates the very fault that he ascribes to those with whom he disagrees.

Loritts is apparently unmoved by the informed and reasoned assessment of scholars such as Dr. James White, who declared on Twitter:

McDonald [sic], Driscoll, etc., showed such disrespect to the Trinity and Church History that they did not even ask the most basic questions.

White later devoted an hour of his popular Dividing Line webcast to scrutinizing Jakes’ statements at the Elephant Room.

Dr. Carl Trueman, Departmental Chair of Church History at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia, likewise gave his assessment of what White called the ‘MacDonald/Driscoll disaster’:

This request that we ask hard questions in the right venue, and consider the ER to have signally failed in this regard, will no doubt evince cries of ‘Hey, hater!’ from some quarters. That is apparently the standard reaction now when anyone questions the actions of a successful pastor of a large church. If, however, we take true doctrine seriously, then surely we will see false teaching for what it is: soul destroying. Reflect on a parallel situation for a moment: let us say that, week after week, I see a congregant’s wife with a black eye and an arm covered in cuts and bruises; eventually I ask her husband, ‘Did you do that?’ to which he says ‘No, I abhor violence and despise the sort of people who beat their wives’; in such circumstances, is it unloving, Pharisaical or hateful of me to press the question a little further? I think not. Indeed, failure so to do would be moral delinquency of the highest order. To press the matter is actually responsible pastoring. The same thing applies with those whose public teaching seems to be deviant. It is not hateful to press the hard questions, and to do so with appropriate competence and in a suitable context; rather, it is right and necessary. (Source)

In a pithy blog post, Tom Chantry, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church, and Elephant Room attendee, gave his assessment of Jakes’ performance:

Jakes masterfully deconstructs the entire practice of theology. Don’t be fooled by the panel members who insist that he affirmed the Trinity. What he did was say, “I’m Trinitarian so long as I am free to express it in Sabelian terms.” He repeatedly insisted that Oneness folks and Trinitarian folks are all saying the same thing. He dismissed the question as secondary – not worth division among the people of Christ, among whom he clearly counts the Oneness churches. Once he has deconstructed the very idea of systematic theology, he can affirm anything. So yes, he answered “absolutely” or “yeș” to each and every one of Driscoll’s questions, but what does that mean? Not much.

The Elephant Room débutantes’ ball has seen the public emergence of pachydermism, the belief that clearly defined and defended sound doctrine is harmful to Christian unity. This lethal disease contrasts sharply with the Biblical doctrine that true unity of faith arises from a shared understanding of the objective truth taught by Scripture (cf. Ephesians 4).

In fact, there have been very few, if any, attacks upon T.D. Jakes himself – I am aware of none. Rather, it is his belief and teaching that have been subject to intense scrutiny. Pachydermism is regrettably characterized by its inability to distinguish between improper attacks upon a person, and the legitimate comparison with Scripture of what a person believes, teaches and confesses.

In a Facebook discussion of the Christian Post article, Pastor Gervase Charmley, minister at Bethel Evangelical Free Church, Stoke on Trent, UK, and perhaps best known for his ‘good sermons’ featured on the Fighting for the Faith Internet radio programme, gave this assessment:

I would say “Woe unto them who say ‘peace, peace’ where there is no peace.” Because that’s what MacDonald and co. are doing, saying that there is peace where there isn’t any.
Yes, the criticism of Jakes has been substantive and doctrinal, not ad hominem. What has been criticised is what the chap has said and not said, not the colour of his shirt, or even the style of his preaching. It is disgraceful to characterise it as personal attack, though not in the least surprising.
One of the effects of Postmodernism is the loss of the ability to actually engage in meaningful conversation; by saying that all positions are equally true we are left with only one avenue of criticism – the personal attack. And that is where you are left by the compromise of the Elephant Room. You can only accuse of ad hominem, while using ad hominem yourself (the implied accusation of racism, for example).
If anyone asked me what I believe about the Trinity, I would be able to point to multiple sermons addressing the question, and historic credal statements that express my beliefs. When someone can’t, we have a problem. No one in public ministry should leave any doubts about their views on the Trinity. Who God is happens to be extremely important.

Loritts’ call for repentance amounts to asking Reformed, Lutheran, Baptist, Confessional Anglicans, and other Christians, to repent for caring about the doctrine of the Trinity and for objecting to Jakes’ false prosperity gospel. Loritts is asking sincere Christians to repent for loving sufficiently so as to be willing to speak the truth, even when it is unwelcome and contrary to the prevailing spirit of the age.

The critics of the Elephant Room have presented substantive, carefully argued and Biblical critiques of what occurred, rooted in the creeds and confessions of the historic orthodox Christian Faith. The defenders of Elephant Room, like Loritts, are able to respond with nothing other than tawdry personal attacks and unfounded slurs and insinuations. It is Loritts who should repent of his reprehensible accusations, and he who, along with James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll, ought to repent for participating in the Great Doctrinal Downgrade of which pachydermism is the herald.

May the Lord open their eyes and grant them repentance and the forgiveness of sins in His Son, who died that even these sins might be forgiven. May He grant us all the grace to speak the truth in love to one another, that we may ‘grow up in all things into Him who is the head – Christ – from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by what every joint supplies, according to the effective working by which every part does its share, causes growth of the body for the edifying of itself in love.’ (Eph. 4:15–16)

Readers may also be interested in my earlier coverage of T.D. Jakes and The Elephant Room 2:

POSTSCRIPT

The term pachydermism was inspired by the title of my friend Erin Benziger’s post, This ‘n’ That – Pachyderm Edition.

UPDATE

The Christian Post article was apparently based upon this blog post by Loritts.

File this one under "Oh, the irony...."

2012-01-27T20:50:00.001-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

Video of James MacDonald rebuking the heretical theology of the Prosperity Gospel. What will his new BFF (Prosperity Gospel preacher T.D. Jakes) think??

Additional Resources

Carl Trueman and the Elephant Room

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

Elephant Room Security on Lookout For Dangerous Persons

Elephant Room II: May We Now Regard T.D. Jakes As Trinitarian and Orthodox?

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

Tom Chantry on ER2

2012-01-27T12:39:00.001-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

An excellent post by Tom Chantry, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church, with some quick points about The Elephant Room 2:

1. T.D. Jakes masterfully deconstructs the entire practice of theology.

2. Mark Driscoll and James MacDonald are too much in awe of Jakes' massive numeric success to call him on this.

3. James MacDonald is angry.

4. The mega-pastors are one big lovin' family!

5. If you aren't defined at least somewhat by what you are against, you aren't really defined at all.

Pastor Chantry's entire post, including the development of these teaser points, can be read here.

Additional Resources

Carl Trueman and the Elephant Room

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

Elephant Room Security on Lookout For Dangerous Persons

Elephant Room II: May We Now Regard T.D. Jakes As Trinitarian and Orthodox?

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

Carl Trueman and The Elephant Room

2012-01-27T12:10:00.002-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

Additional Resources

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

Elephant Room Security on Lookout For Dangerous Persons

Elephant Room II: May We Now Regard T.D. Jakes As Trinitarian and Orthodox?

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

Attention, Elephant Room Security Personnel...

2012-01-26T14:06:00.002-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

Additional Resources

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

2012-01-25T19:24:00.005-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

These are the facts of the case, and they are undisputed.

Fighting For The Faith radio talk show host Chris Rosebrough, an outspoken critic of seeker driven methodology and ego-driven megachurches, recently traveled, along with his colleague and fellow discernment writer Erin Benziger, to Rolling Meadows, Illinois to attend The Elephant Room II, an event hosted by James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel and Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church.

Chris Rosebrough and Erin Benziger had both purchased online registrations for this event.

Upon entering the building to attend the conference, Chris Rosebrough and Erin Benziger (Do Not Be Surprised blog) were approached by security personnel who informed them that their registrations to The Elephant Room II had been revoked, and that they needed to immediately leave the premises, or be arrested for trespassing.

The Elephant Room II says in its 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.

You may listen to Chris Rosebrough's interview about this event here.

Additional Resources

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II - Chris Rosebrough's Article

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

2012-01-25T11:42:00.134-05:00

Posted by Cathy Mathews and Christine Pack

The Christian discernment blogosphere has already been very, very busy in just the first 4 weeks of 2012. First was Passion 2012 in Atlanta, GA, with its concerning alliances and seemingly mystical activities which led to obvious questions among many Christians. Next we had the whipped up Code Orange Revival which took place in Charlotte, NC under the direction of rising superstar pastor Steven Furtick, and at which Oneness heretic T.D. Jakes was......rebuked? corrected for his false teaching? asked to leave? No, none of those things. In fact, Trinity denier* Jakes was welcomed with open arms as a keynote speaker for the conference. In an even more surprising turn, well-regarded pastor and Gospel Coalition member James MacDonald spoke very warmly from the stage about T.D. Jakes, and in tweets after the event proclaimed his love for Jakes and his teaching. It was shortly after the ~~Heresy Love Fest~~ Code Orange Revival that James MacDonald, pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel, chose to resign from The Gospel Coalition, of which he had been a founding member.

Whew. But wait, there's more.

The reason these events have been so controversial is because discernment writers, who are often charged with being hateful, judgmental, divisive, etc., have helped to put the spotlight on these concerning alliances (thus creating controversy), and have written numerous articles aimed at helping their fellow Christians understand why it's a problem that T.D. Jakes denies the orthodox understanding of the Trinity, that doctrine really does matter, and why Christians can't just willy-nilly link to anyone who comes down the pike claiming to be a Christian brother. Words matter. Terms matter. Definitions matter. After all, we demand precision from cab drivers, surgeons, airline pilots, and elevators: should we ask any less from those who are handling God's word? And thus, controversy has arisen. Should high profile pastors like James MacDonald (and by default, well-regarded groups like The Gospel Coalition) be associated with someone like T.D. Jakes, a character that my grandfather would have given the old-fashioned term "huckster"? So a number of Christian apologetics and discernment bloggers, including:

Dan Phillips (Biblical Christianity and Team Pyro)

Ken Silva (Apprising Ministires)

Talk show host Chris Rosebrough (Fighting For the Faith Radio)

Erin Benziger (Do Not Be Surprised)

Daniel Neades (Better Than Sacrifice)

(among others) have been outspoken critics of events like Code Orange Revival and The Elephant Room II, and labored to help their fellow Christians understand the doctrinal problems with some of the speakers at these events, including Steven Furtick and T.D. Jakes.

But wait, there's still more.

In an ongoing effort to gather information, talk show host Chris Rosebrough and writer Erin Benziger (as mentioned above) both purchased tickets to Elephant Room II and traveled to the event, which began today. Upon entering the event, however, both were approached by security and told that their registration at the Elephant Room II conference has been revoked. Both Rosebrough and Benziger were told to leave the premises of Harvest Bible Chapel under threat of arrest. Yes, you might want to read that again, and no, it's no joke. (And you can listen to Chris Rosebrough discuss what happened in a radio interview at Issues, Etc. here)

And now read the purpose statement of The Elephant Room:

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. (our emphasis)

As you probably already know, James MacDonald is the pastor at Harvest Bible Church and also the host of The Elephant Room II. Just yesterday, MacDonald resigned from The Gospel Coalition due to his invitation to T.D. Jakes to speak at this year's Elephant Room.

Wow- apparently, MacDonald will separate from an organization that is grouped around the Biblical Gospel (The Gospel Coalition) for the sake of giving cover to a heretic who preaches a different gospel, while at the same time refusing to even admit into attendance some Christians who disagree with MacDonald's yoking to said heretic.

Who is it in this picture that is "crouching behind walls of disagreement?"

* Before the emails start, yes, I know that T.D. Jakes was asked whether he affirms the Trinity at the just begun Elephant Room II, and yes I know that he answered that he does. The problem here is that no-one has asked him to define his terms. Those who have researched T.D. Jakes and know him well can attest that he does not hold to the orthodox view of the Trinity as held by Christians through the centuries.

Additional Resources

Elephant Room 2 Features Trinity Denier T.D. Jakes As A Keynote Speaker

Chris Rosebrough Gives An Interview About Being Escorted By Security From The Elephant Room II

The Doctrine of the Trinity

Running Scared: Why Is The Elephant Room Afraid of Scrutiny

Even Better Than The Race Card

James MacDonald Resigns From The Gospel Coalition

A Church Breaks With James MacDonald's Harvest Bible Fellowship

A Review of T.D. Jakes Code Orange Sermon

Code Orange: Revival or Deception?

Why Is Oneness Pentecostalism Heresy?

James MacDonald Digs Deeper Hole For the Elephant Room

T.D. Jakes' Modalism is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes and Postmodern Obfuscation

Oneness-Pentecostals vs. Christians

Is Nicene Christianity That Important? An historical-ecumenical note

A Review of T.D. Jakes' Code Orange Revival Sermon

2012-01-22T15:08:00.001-05:00

By Daniel Neades (Better Than Sacrifice)

This article is a review of T.D. Jakes’ Code Orange Revival sermon, preached on 20 January 2012 at Elevation Church in Charlotte, North Carolina.

T.D. Jakes is the leader of The Potter’s House, a 30,000 member congregation located in southern Dallas, Texas. I had never heard a T.D. Jakes sermon before, though I knew of his reputation. I was curious to see – if only via an Internet video stream – the man that Elevation Church reminded us was named ‘America’s Best Preacher’ by Time Magazine. Would I be able to uncover the secret of his mystique? And would he preach the Biblical Gospel?

After 40 minutes or so of emotionally intense praise and worship, Steven Furtick, founder and lead pastor of Elevation Church, introduces Jakes to the manifestly ecstatic, cheering crowd. Furtick promises that God is about to speak to us, that our lives will never be the same:

God’s gonna honour your faith. He’s going to shake you, and He’s gonna remake you. And He’s gonna do things in your life that will blow your mind. And we’re believing that for you tonight.

We’re in revival. If you’re joining us from all over the world, you need to know that this is night 10 of Code Orange Revival. We’re coming to you live from Elevation Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, reaching over a 100 countries all over the world. And God has made an appointment with you tonight. He’s about to speak something to you. Your life will never be the same. In His presence is fullness of joy.

These things are not being done in a corner.

Furtick is on a roll:

If you’ve never heard T.D. Jakes preach, listen, you have heard Bishop T.D. Jakes preach. Let me explain that. Every preacher who has anything to say rips off Bishop T.D. Jakes. Bishop T.D. Jakes is the preacher, if you attend this church, who feeds your soul every single week. And you didn’t even ever know to write him a thank you note. Most of us quit apologising for how much we ripped-off Bishop T.D. Jakes a long time ago, because we were taking more time in our sermons attributing the credit to him for the way he fed our souls than we were actually preaching. So when Bishop Jakes said that he would be with us at Code Orange Revival, I just made up my mind that we would sing just enough to get you ready, and not show any videos or anything like that, and that I would sit down on my orange chair on the stage, and I would have the best night of my life listening to my favourite preacher in the world.

That’s some build-up. But Furtick has not yet finished:

When someone has touched your soul and been an instrument of God that speaks so deeply to you, and then, he agrees to come and share with your church, and help build your church, that’s gotta be one of the most meaningful moments of your life.

I want you to know, Bishop Jakes, that there’s a whole generation of younger pastors who, because you’ve been a pioneer to stay faithful to God’s word, and to preach with such power, that we’re now charging forward in the name of Jesus. And I want to let you know personally, that I’m gonna do my best to make you proud.

Furtick concludes his panegyric:

I appreciate the fact that you would come and be with us tonight. But, more importantly, I appreciate the fact that you’ve got a bunch of hungry people in here, who are about to lose their minds. Elevation Church, at every location, I want you to stand up on your feet right now, and let’s welcome to the stage the Greatest Preacher of Our Time – Bishop T.D. Jakes. Come on, let’s show him some embarrassing love.

Jakes takes the stage. He acknowledges the crowd’s standing ovation.

His charisma is immediately apparent.

He courts the crowd with some gentle banter. He is approachable. He is humorous. He is the embodiment of the idealized kindly grandfather.

He is your grandfather.

The audience cheer and offer their applause. This is the one whom those camping outside on the streets came to see.

Jakes praises Steven Furtick and Elevation Church. The Elevators love him. And Jakes makes sure that they know their love is reciprocated.

Jakes impresses with his modesty. With a suddenly faltering vulnerability, he declares:

I’m gonna spend most of my time just going right, er, er, to, to the word of God. I’m, er, um, honoured and appreciative of all of His goodness in my life. And, er, [I’m] trying to seek Him, trying to serve Him, trying to learn more of His grace and power. I, I think that I am more fascinated with Him now than I have ever been in my life.

Jakes carefully modulates his speech.

He starts softly, then builds to a minor crescendo, as he demonstrates that he is steeped in the knowledge and language of the Scriptures, the result of 33 years of ministry. With a rhythmic cadence, Jakes proclaims the praises of a majestic God:

It will never grow old. It will never grow weary. You will never reach the end of Him. From everlasting to everlasting, Thou art God. His, His riches are unsearchable. His love incomprehensible. His ways past finding out. You will grow old and wither away, and still be searching the newness of God. His mercies are new every morning. Aren’t you glad you’re washed in the blood of the Lamb?

The cheering audience is enraptured. Surely, this is how a man of God must speak.

Little wonder that Furtick is captured by his spell.

Barely a few minutes in and Jakes, the master communicator who overcame his childhood lisp, has already won this crowd.

They trust him.

He is the humble, faithful servant who loves his God.

Abruptly, the tone changes. Everyone relaxes. Jakes turns to Hebrews chapter 4. We’re going to start in the Scriptures, as befits the preaching of the man from God.

Unexpectedly, there’s a problem. Jakes has lost one of his notes.

Temporarily disoriented, he looks around.

Someone hands him the missing note, just in time to prevent the enchantment from being shattered.

Jakes changes tempo – he’s back in control. He has everyone stand for the reading of God’s word. Jakes reads from the King James Version – he is reassuringly and self-deprecatingly old school.

We begin with the eighth chapter of the Gospel of Luke, verse forty-six:

And Jesus said, Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me.

He elaborates a little on the text, then moves quickly to Hebrews 4:15–16. He wants to ‘play with these two texts and see whether we can get them to cohabitate [sic] together.’

Jakes jokes with the crowd as he waits for them to find the book of Hebrews. They laugh adoringly with him.

Jakes begins to read:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be…

He pauses for a fraction of a second.

He enunciates the next word – ‘touched’ – with explosive emphasis.

He continues his recitation:

…with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come [‘How?’, Jakes interjects] boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Jakes reads with passion and feeling. You could listen to him read Scripture all day and still be eager for more.

He explains that he read all of that to get one word: ‘Touched, touched’.

Touch is the theme of tonight’s sermon.

Jakes changes pace. The crowd needs their release, a moment to reflect upon the word ‘touched’. The background music, which had stopped unnoticed minutes before, now resumes as Jakes prays, beseeching the Holy Spirit for His glory. Jakes’ humility is again on display:

There really is no preacher but You. There is no glory but Yours. There is no word but that word which proceedeth out of Your mouth. And we come before You like sparrows with our mouths open, waiting for, for bread to fall into our mouths. Feed us O God, until we want no more.

As Jakes finishes his prayer, he builds up to another carefully crafted crescendo – higher than the last, but nevertheless merely anticipatory of those yet to come. He truly is lord of the rhetorical arts and master of his own voice, consciously aware of the effect of his intonation’s every nuance.

Jakes begins his sermon proper. He talks at length about the importance and power of human touch. Words are insufficient – some meaning can be conveyed only through touch.

His discussion moves back to the book of Hebrews. He outlines with an infectious enthusiasm his understanding of the book: it is a comparative analysis of the Old and New covenants, ‘so that we might understand that what we have in our contemporary society – through the blood of Jesus Christ – is a better thing.’

This is the evening’s second mention of the blood of Christ. Surely, we must be hearing Gospel?

Jakes holds forth on why the New Covenant is better than the Old:

[God] always takes you to something better, never lesser. God is always in the business of taking you forwards, never backwards. He’s not in the business of diminishing you, he’s in the business of increasing you. He doesn’t want to divide you, he wants to multiply you. He doesn’t want to subtact from you, he wants to add on to you. And wherever God is, He will take you from faith to faith, and from glory to glory.

The crowd laps up the rhetoric. This is what they have yearned to hear. Jakes waits for the applause to quiet.

A niggling doubt begins to surface.

Is this the Gospel? That God is in the business of ‘increasing us’? Is that why the blood of Christ was shed?

What of John the Baptist, who said ‘He must increase, but I must decrease’ (John 3:30)? Has not the Lord ‘made all things for himself’, ‘even the wicked for the day of doom’ (Prov. 16:4)? Are not all things made for His benefit and His glory? Paul said – did he not? – ‘For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen.’ (Rom. 11:36)

But perhaps Jakes is speaking of a spiritual increase, whereby, in the language of Luther’s Small Catechism, our old nature is drowned by daily sorrow and repentance, put to death, ‘that the new man should come forth daily and rise up, cleansed and righteous, to live forever in God’s presence’. For twice already Jakes has invoked the blood of Christ – surely he will bring us the Gospel.

Jakes tests his sway over his audience. He tells them, ‘Look at someone and say it’s getting better’.

They obey.

He has them utterly in thrall.

The crowd offers the appropriate liturgical response: ‘It’s getting better.’

Is this the Good News, then? That my life is continually getting better?

Was this the experience and hope of Stephen, calling upon the Lord to receive his spirit as he succumbed to the stones being hurled at him for the sake of the Gospel (Acts 7)? And what of Paul and his chains (Phil. 1)? Or the other apostles – all martyred, save John, as history recounts.

Jakes continues:

You have to know that. And you have to know that by faith, because sometimes, when He takes something or someone out of your life, the enemy will tempt you to think that your life is on a decline. But there is no way your life can be on a decline and you serve the Lord. Because He’s ever increasing brighter and brighter and brighter, to a perfect day. So if He pulled it out, if He took it away, if He moved it, it is only a sign that something is coming that is better than the thing before.

Something surely is coming that is better than what went before: ‘He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Jesus Christ’ (Phil. 1:6). ‘For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.’ (1 Cor. 13:12)

Could that be what Jakes means?

Jakes is right in this: the New Covenant is better than the Old. And this is indeed a major theme of the book of Hebrews.

But, for the writer to the Hebrews, the ‘better’ of the New Covenant is the perfect once-for-all sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross, contrasted with the Old Covenant, which:

…having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect.
(Heb. 10:1)

According to Hebrews, then, the superiority of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood is the once-for-all washing away of our sins 2,000 years ago at Calvary. The inferiority of the Old Covenant was demonstrated by the need for its continual sacrifices. These were a constant reminder of Israel’s ever present sins. The sacrifices had to be repeated, for it was impossible that sins could ever be taken away by the blood of bulls and goats (Heb. 10:4). Yet, what the sacrifices of the Old Covenant could not do, Christ accomplished once and for all on the cross.

Jakes, however, though he gives the impression of having expounded the book of Hebrews, does not mention sin or the need for propitiatory sacrifice.

Jakes, for the moment, leaves the ‘better’ of the New Covenant unexplained, except that, somehow, God is now in the business of increasing us. The New Covenant is better, because, well, it just is. And thus, for us, Jakes says, ‘It’s getting better’.

The ‘It’ in Jakes’ affirmation is left undefined, leaving us free to substitute whatever happens to appeal to our carnal desires. His message is universal, appealing to fallen human natures everywhere.

Not once does Jakes carefully delineate between the earthly blessings of this life and the spiritual riches that are surely ours in Christ. When Jakes says, ‘It’s getting better’, everyone implicitly understands that he is talking about this life. The spirit of Joel Osteen’s Best Life Now speaks to us.

When Paul asks ‘Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?’, he makes plain the ever present probability in the life of the believer of tribulation, distress, physical want, and yes, even death:

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written:
“For Your sake we are killed all day long;
We are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.”
(Rom. 8:35–36)

Christ’s love does not spare us from these troubles, but rather overcomes them. Christ’s love and grace supply our every need, causing us to endure all things to His glory. Thus, Paul asserts:

Yet in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
(Rom. 8:37–39)

Similarly, James tells us to ‘count it all joy when you fall into various trials, knowing that the testing of your faith produces patience.’ (James 1:2–3).

Jesus does not promise us freedom from trouble and distress. Rather, he pronounces blessed ‘those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven’. (Matt. 5:10)

‘Blessed’, Jesus says, ‘are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake.’ He bids us ‘Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.’ (Matt. 5:11–12)

The Christian’s hope and reward is not in this life. Our hope is Christ; our reward – and what reward! – is to be with Him in heaven forever.

When Jakes talks of ‘It’s getting better’, he leaves us free to understand that he means this life, here and now. He commits the error of all word-faith teachers, claiming for this temporal life the blessings that belong to the eternal glory to come. He omits to mention the present tribulations and persecutions that Jesus indicates are in store for the faithful.

Jakes uses Biblical language. He even speaks of ‘the blood of Christ’. But in this sermon, that phrase can be no more than a magic incantation, for he tells usnothing of why our sin required that blood to be shed.

Christ commissioned His Church to preach ‘repentance and remission of sins’ (Luke 24:44–48), yet Jakes speaks neither of repentance nor of forgiveness.

Jakes returns to his text:

The thing, then, for the book of Hebrews, is the book of better things. And so what he is saying in the text, he says ‘We have not a high priest who cannot be touched’. The implication is almost, is almost a slur to that which is former, compared to that which exists now. Because up under the former administration through the Old Testament and the Old Covenant, there were high priests as well. But they could not be touched. They could not be touched. It almost reminds of a comparative analysis between religion and relationships.

Jakes here quotes only the first few words of Hebrews 4:15: ‘We have not a high priest who cannot be touched’. He builds on these words to make the point that the crucial difference between the Old and New Covenants is that we have a High Priest who can be touched, whereas the laws of the Old Covenant made the high priests untouchable. The Old Covenant was cold and religious. The New Covenant is warm and relational. We can touch our High Priest.

Jakes has played a verbal sleight of hand, a conjuring trick with words. Hebrews 4:15 does not teach that we can reach out and touch our High Priest. This is clear if the whole verse is quoted, even in Jakes’ King James Version:

For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

The problem becomes glaring if a modern translation is compared. Here is the same verse from the New King James Version:

For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.

This verse teaches not that we can reach out and touch Jesus, but that Christ can sympathize with our weakness – and specifically, our weakness in the face of temptation – because, like us, He was tempted in every way.

The incarnate Christ is fully human. He knows our weakness, and sympathizes with it. Unlike the high priests of the Old Testament, though, and unlike us, He never succumbed to temptation and remains without sin. Our High Priest’s sacrifice of Himself is pleasing to God because He is sinless.

But can Jakes really be intending to preach an entire sermon based upon a basic misreading of Hebrews 4:15?

As we continue to listen, it becomes clear that yes, yes he is.

Jakes introduces us to some more of his innovative theology:

[God] paid the ultimate price, that He might express the value of you by dying on the cross to give you eternal life. Never let any devil in hell make you think that you’re not valuable. Not based on the mistakes you made, or the things you did, or the circumstances of your birth. Not based on your economy, not based on your intellect, your education, or anything like that. Any time you doubt your worth, you tell the enemy ‘I must be valuable because Jesus died for me’. He died for me. I must be somebody, or He wouldn’t have died for me. No matter what I did, no matter what I’ve been through, no matter what mistakes I’ve made, I’ve got to be valuable because He’s shed His blood for me.
Touch your neighbour and say, ‘I am somebody’.
(The cheering audience, now on their feet and well conditioned, obeys.)
I am somebody only because Jesus paid a price to recognize my worth. I will never doubt my worth again.

Did Jesus die for us to recognize our intrinsic worth?

Is that the Gospel?

Or is the grace of God so overwhelming, His love so great that, even though we had no worth, even while we were rebels and at war with God, even though we hadnothing whatsoever to offer Him, God nevertheless sent His only begotten Son to die in our place and purchase us as His pearl of great price?

In thesis 28 of his Heidelberg Disputation, Luther explains the Biblical teaching:

The love of God does not find, but creates, that which is pleasing to it. The love of man comes into being through that which is pleasing to it.

We love the things that we find loveable. In Christ, God’s love takes we who are unloveable and makes us lovely.

Those who are in Christ by faith, those who are trusting in His work for them and not their work for Him, have truly been made into something beautiful and glorifying to God. Christ did not die for us because we were acceptable to God, but rather ‘He made us accepted in the beloved’. (Eph. 1:6) We, having been given the gift of trusting in Christ, are now to the praise of His glory. (Eph. 1:12) We have worth, then, because we are in Christ. We are not in Christ because we have worth.

If we had something to offer God, our salvation would not be by grace. Yet the grace of God bestowed upon us is unmerited favour:

For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.
(Eph. 2:8–10)

Jakes’ gospel glorifies us. It ascribes to us an intrinsic worth even outside of Christ. The true Gospel glorifies Christ, proclaiming His love and tender mercy even towards those who were utterly without merit.

Jakes’ gospel has no need to speak of sin, only ‘mistakes’, for his god looks upon sinners and sees their worth. The true Gospel has Jesus crucified in the place of sinners and for their sin, for without Christ’s appeasing sacrifice we should be consumed by the eternal wrath of a perfectly Holy and terrifyingly righteous God.

Jakes’ gospel speaks of the blood of the Lamb, but merely as a token of our intrinsic worth. The true Gospel speaks of the blood of the Lamb as that which cleanses us from sin, that which justifies, that which sanctifies, and that which glorifies. The true Gospel speaks of the perfect sacrifice for sins, once made forever:

By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God, from that time waiting till His enemies are made His footstool. For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.
But the Holy Spirit also witnesses to us; for after He had said before, “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws into their hearts, and in their minds I will write them,” then He adds, “Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” Now where there is remission of these, there is no longer an offering for sin.
(Heb. 10:10–18)

Jakes returns again to his theme of touch:

We have a High Priest who can be touched…He’s accessible. You can reach Him. You don’t need special people in the Church to reach Him. You don’t have to reach me and ask me to reach Him.

The definition of ‘touch’ has shifted. It now means ‘accessible’.

And what Jakes says here is true. But it is still not the meaning of the text he is expounding. He makes a valid point using invalid means. His is not a faithful handling of God’s word.

Jakes continues, demonstrating that he does understand on a certain level what Hebrews 4:15 actually says, that it’s not about us touching Jesus, but Jesus sympathizing with our weaknesses:

You cannot stop me from reaching God. He can be touched by the feeling of our infirmity. And sometimes He is the only one who knows how you feel.

Jakes makes a seamless transition, moving from touch being our reaching out to God, to Christ being touched by the feeling our infirmity, sympathizing with our weakness.

Even here, though, we have a subtle twist. Christ’s sympathy for our plight in the face of temptation is made into a general sympathy for how we feel. This is not what the text says.

Jakes clearly knows what Hebrews 4:15 teaches, but that does not stop him from preaching at length from that text ideas not found within it. This is not how to handle God’s word. This is not according it due respect. This is not a model of preaching to be emulated.

Jakes picks a verse because it contains a word – one word, as he stated – that he wants to use to make his point. He then uses that verse to lend a veneer of Biblical authority to whatever he has already decided to say. This is not the behaviour of a great preacher.

Jakes continues with his cavalier attitude towards the text.

In context, the word ‘infirmities’ in Hebrews 4:15 is speaking of our sin:

Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses [‘infirmities’, KJV], but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.
(Heb. 4:14–16, NKJV)

These verses contrast our sin with Christ’s sinlessness. Yet Jakes now takes the word ‘infirmities’ out of its context, and through wordplay almost imperceptibly changes the topic to that of our physical sicknesses. Speaking on behalf of God, he says:

It is the feeling of your infirmity that touches me. Your humility touches me. Your tears touch me. Your needs touch me.
This is shocking truth at the time that it is heralded in the word of God, because the ideology previously is that anybody who had infirmities couldn’t touch God. But now He has been wounded for our transgressions. He has been bruised for our iniquities. The chastisement of our peace is upon Him. And with his stripes we are healed.

Hebrews 14:15 does not teach that our humility touches God, nor our tears. It teaches that Christ understands our temptation, because He Himself was tempted in every way as we are, yet without sin.

Jakes’ quoting of Isaiah 53:5 ought to be pure, comforting Gospel. But Jakes has not told us of our sin, and so we do not know our need of the Gospel. Jakes instead uses Isaiah to shift the topic, because he wants to talk about physical healing. And thus he moves to the subject of the Luke 8:46 verse that he read earlier: the woman with the issue of blood.

As he promised, Jakes has indeed played with the texts. He has forced them to cohabit.

There is much that could be discussed concerning Jakes’ extended handling of this text, but the pattern has been established. He handles this verse in a similarly cavalier way to his treatment of Hebrews 4:15. He emphasizes the word ‘touched’ in Luke 8:46. He makes the verse about us, about how we can reach out and touch Christ. Jakes again plays with words:

You must understand this woman has an issue that has engrossed her and overwhelemed her. And sometimes when we’re praying we have an issue, all we talk about is the issue. Oh Lord…do something about my issue, do something about my situation. And after a while…the only thing that’s big to you is your problem.

The woman’s issue of blood becomes our ‘issue’ – our situation, our problem. Jakes builds upon his new textual victim, teaching that we can reach out and touch Jesus, and that, when we do, He will fix our issues, our problems.

But Luke 8:46 is not about us. It is a historical record of one woman’s encounter with Jesus. It is not normative for our faith and practice. It does not teach that we can reach out and touch Jesus, and that He will then fix our problems in this life.

The woman’s issue of blood is not representative of our issues, our problems. Rather, the miracles that Jesus did in fulfilment of prophecy authenticated His ministry, demonstrating that He was the promised Messiah, God made flesh.

This is clear from Luke’s own gospel, in the chapter immediately prior to the one from which Jakes’ takes his text:

Then the disciples of John reported to him concerning all these things. And John, calling two of his disciples to him, sent them to Jesus, saying, “Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?”
When the men had come to Him, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to You, saying, ‘Are You the Coming One, or do we look for another?’ ” And that very hour He cured many of infirmities, afflictions, and evil spirits; and to many blind He gave sight.
Jesus answered and said to them, “Go and tell John the things you have seen and heard: that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he who is not offended because of Me.”
(Luke 7:18–23)

In the book of Acts, this same Luke records Peter explaining the purpose of the miracles that Jesus performed:

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know—Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it.
(Acts 2:22–24)

Once again, Jakes mishandles the Holy Scripture, taking a verse out of context and misapplying it to make a point of his own devising. He expertly clothes his error with Biblical language, obfuscating it with generous portions of truth.

Having shifted the ground, Jakes introduces a subtle version of the word-faith heresy, which teaches that the confession of our mouth actualizes reality:

And whenever you start talking more about your problem than you do your promise, you are praising your problem. And whatever you praise will be magnified in your life. Let’s explore this a little bit.

Time passes.

Jakes continues to whip up the crowd into ever increasing crescendos of ecstatic frenzy. They love him. They love his message.

I fear for him.

I fear for those who love his teaching.

Please, pray for him.

Please, pray for them.

Jakes now mocks faithful, humble, Biblical Christians, his voice saturated with scorn:

You’ll never get what you want from God being passive, sitting back and folding your arms and saying, ‘Well, if it’s the Lord’s will’. That woman [the woman with the issue] would have died praying ‘If it’s the Lord’s will’.

The crowd goes wild.

Jakes continues:

It, it wasn’t just about the Lord’s will. It was about her will.
You have a will – that God respects.
He created us with a will, an ability to make choices and make decisions…we have a will. That’s why he asks one man, ‘Wilt thou be made whole. Do you want it bad enough to crawl for it? Do you want it bad enough to go through what you gotta go through to get it? Do you want it bad enough to be laughed at and criticized, not be popular at work, and they call you a Christian and make jokes about you? How bad do you want it?

Contrast this with Jesus’ prayer to the Father:

Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done.
Then an angel appeared to Him from heaven, strengthening Him. And being in agony, He prayed more earnestly. Then His sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
(Luke 22:42–44)

Compare Jakes’ words with how Jesus taught His disciples how to pray:

So He said to them, “When you pray, say:
Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
(Luke 11:2–3)

Or the teaching of James:

Come now, you who say, “Today or tomorrow we will go to such and such a city, spend a year there, buy and sell, and make a profit”; whereas you do not know what will happen tomorrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away. Instead you ought to say, “If the Lord wills, we shall live and do this or that.” But now you boast in your arrogance. All such boasting is evil.
(James 4:13–16)

Or that of John:

Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us. And if we know that He hears us, whatever we ask, we know that we have the petitions that we have asked of Him
(1 John 5:14–15)

The petition that God hears and grants is the petition made in accordance with Hiswill. The Christian life is one of putting to death our own will, the desires of our flesh, that the express will of God might instead reign in us:

And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. (Gal. 5:25)

Jakes’ doctrine is arrogant. It is not from God. He magnifies us, and diminishes our Sovereign Creator. Heed the wisdom of Solomon:

Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.
(Ecc. 12:13–14)

Jakes continues to glorify our own spirits:

The human spirit – I’m not talking about the Holy Spirit – the human spirit is so strong that doctors will tell you that there have been cancer patients eaten up with cancer. They said ‘You’ll be dead in 30 days.’ And by sheer will, they have lived. I’m talking about the human spirit – I’m not even talking about the Holy Spirit…if the human spirit is that strong, imagine what happens when you add the holy.

The subtle version of the word-faith heresy introduced but moments earlier grows rapidly towards full maturity.

We see now why Jakes dared only to read a single verse from Luke 8. Had he read the story of the woman in context, it would have been plain that it was not the woman’s ‘aggressive’, bold and powerful will that made her well. No, it was her faith– her childlike trust in the ability and compassion of Jesus:

But as He went, the multitudes thronged Him. Now a woman, having a flow of blood for twelve years, who had spent all her livelihood on physicians and could not be healed by any, came from behind and touched the border of His garment. And immediately her flow of blood stopped.
And Jesus said, “Who touched Me?”
When all denied it, Peter and those with him said, “Master, the multitudes throng and press You, and You say, ‘Who touched Me?’”
But Jesus said, “Somebody touched Me, for I perceived power going out from Me. Now when the woman saw that she was not hidden, she came trembling; and falling down before Him, she declared to Him in the presence of all the people the reason she had touched Him and how she was healed immediately.
And He said to her, “Daughter, be of good cheer; your faith has made you well. Go in peace.”
(Luke 8:42–48)

Jakes continues his eisegesis, reading into the text with great profundity that which is not there.

The crowd, wild with excitement, does not care. They are utterly enchanted by his spell.

The music reappears, signalling the beginning of the end.

Jakes tells the crowd that God gave Him this message: ‘God told me, when you get to Code Orange, He said, tell my people, “You’re not just having a 12 day revival. You’re having a 12 day resurrection.”’

This self-proclaimed prophet of God launches into a frenzied series of final crescendos. This is the consummation for which he has been labouring, artfully seducing his audience.

The crowd is on its feet, clapping, hands waving, cheering. Dramatic music plays.

There is more revelation directly from God. ‘God says,’ claims Jakes, ‘I’m still touching. Whatever you want. Whatever you need.’

Again, Jakes gives free rein to our wants, our desires.

God is still touching, says Jakes. This message, this sermon, must therefore have been what God wanted Elevation to hear, never mind that it misrepresented and twisted God’s Holy word.

Jakes is still speaking:

Let him touch you.
You might be watching on a screen, you may be watching over the Internet, but allow the power of the Holy of the Spirit touch you right now. You might have a condition or an issue that has persisted in your life for years. But oh my God, the glory of God is here to minister in your life.

A singer sings He Touched Me.

Jakes declaims again, his voice charged with emotion:

I feel the Spirit of God sweeping up and down these aisles. The glory of the Lord is moving from pew to pew. Hallelujah. His presence is in this place right now. You don’t have an issue that he cannot fix. Every situation, every circumstance, every problem is within His grasp. You are to allow the Holy Spirit to do a new thing in your life right now. To heal you, to minister to you, and set you free. The glory of the Lord is here. Touch causes growth. You can’t grow in God if you won’t touch Him and allow Him to touch you.

Here we have another confusion of temporal and eternal promises in Christ. Can God fix my every problem in this life? Certainly. Does He promise in His word that He will? No.

Jakes’ teaching is deadly to those who are enticed by it. They trust in God to fix the problems of this life, to keep them from trial and tribulation. And should He not accede to their arrogant expectation, their faith is shipwrecked, because it was founded not upon the sure and certain promises of God’s word in Christ as recorded in the Scriptures, but upon the false words of a self-proclaimed prophet.

This preaching gives people a transient emotional high. It scratches itching ears, speaking into them what they are eager to hear. It manipulates, it deludes, it defrauds. Afterwards, when tribulation or persecution arises, immediately its victims stumble. They are lost, innoculated to the true Gospel. They have tried Christianity, so they think, and found it full of empty promises – it doesn’t work.

Is T.D. Jakes the Greatest Preacher of Our Time?

Only if the measure of greatness is the ability to play a virtuoso performance on the emotions of a crowd.

But that is not the Biblical measure of great preaching, which rather esteems fidelity to the text, and the ability to make the proper distinction between Law and Gospel. Law, to frighten comfortable sinners, to show us our need for a Saviour, to teach those who trust in Christ the perfect standard of godly living. Gospel, the power of Salvation to all who believe, that sweet comfort of Christ declaring ‘It is finished’, His having reconciled us to God and saved us through His perfect life, death and resurrection.

Jakes is concluding. He commands by divine authority that I allow the Holy Spirit to do a new thing in my life right now.

But does the Holy Spirit require my permission before He works in me? If so, how was I ever saved, when I was once His enemy and dead in my trespasses and sin?

In quiet, tremulous tones, Jakes pleads repeatedly over the music and song for us to ‘Touch Him’.

Even here, Jakes leaves us with a problem. For he has not yet told us how to touch Jesus. Jesus isn’t standing bodily before me, as he was for the woman with the issue of blood. I can’t reach out with my hand and touch the hem of His garment, as did she.

Jakes instructs the now reflective audience to ‘Climb over every obstacle and excuse.’

He changes tone. He feels the pain of every individual in the crowd. He assures them, ‘God wants to stop your issue, and set you free.’

Has God said in His word that He wants to stop your issue? By what authority, then, does Jakes proclaim this?

Jakes is well into his emotive plea for people to be saved:

Now, He won’t make you be saved. And He won’t make the backslider come back to Him. And He won’t make you be a Christian. You have to use an act of your will and say “I want this, I want this.”’

Is this true? Does the Scripture teach that we are saved through an act of our will?

Or does the Scripture instead teach that we ‘were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God’ (John 1:13)? Does it teach that ‘No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him’ (John 6:44)? Does it teach that ‘by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast’ (Eph. 2:8–9)?

Jakes pleads:

Wherever you are, if you’re here and you want to be a Christian, or if you’ve drifted away and you wanna come back to the Lord, would you raise your hand? Right where you are, and say, ‘I wanna be saved’?

What does Jakes mean, by ‘I wanna be saved’? Saved from what?

He gives his answer:

If the woman with the issue of blood with all of her problems and obstacles can say, ‘I want this’, lift that hand up! Yes! Lift it up! Yes!

For Jakes, salvation is deliverance from the problems and obstacles of this life. This is his beguiling message, for who would not want that? And, having heard his sermon, the fervent crowd has believed the lie that this is what God is offering them.

A few more words, and Jakes is done.

Furtick steps forward. ‘The Bible says that the angels in heaven rejoice when one sinner turns from their sins’.

The crowd cheers and claps.

Wait, what was that? – ‘when one sinner turns from their sins’?

But we have heard nothing at all about our sins from Jakes, only about our ‘issues’.

For Jakes, our problem is not that we have grievously offended an infinitely Holy and righteous God with our sin, and that He is therefore justly angry with us. For Jakes, our problem is not that we are deservedly facing an eternity in hell. No, for him, our problem is that we have issues in this life.

With his misdiagnosis of the human condition, Jakes’ gospel is necessarily false. His gospel is not that Christ died to bear the punishment for our sin and rose from the dead, but that Jesus died to show us our worth and to fix our problems.

Furtick, though, is smitten. He tells us that we’ve just received ‘one of the greatest gifts in the body of Christ’ – the treasure of God’s word through Bishop T.D. Jakes.

But we didn’t hear the proclamation of repentance and the forgiveness of sins.

We didn’t hear the Law or the Gospel.

We didn’t, then, hear God’s word.

And never once did Jakes make anything of the second half of Hebrews 4:15 – that the reason Jesus is able to sympathize with our weaknesses is that He was ‘in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin.’ And that, therefore, we should ‘come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and grace to help in time of need’.

The writer to the Hebrews speaks not of a ‘Jesus who can fix my problems’, but of the Jesus who lived the sinless life that I could not and can not. It tells us of the Jesus whose righteousness is now put to our account by faith, so that we may come boldly to His throne and receive grace and mercy without fear or condemnation.

And how I need that grace and mercy! For even this very day, I find myself mired in sin and in need of forgiveness. I have not loved the Lord my God with all my heart, mind, soul and strength. I have not loved my neighbour as myself. Not even for a moment. I need, right now, a High Priest who has made a perfect sacrifice for my sins. I need His flawless righteousness put to my account.

Furtick finishes by telling Elevation that they have to ‘expect God to bless you because you’ve been a part of this’.

I am excluded, because I wasn’t part of that. I haven’t been on pilgrimage to the Holy City of Charlotte, North Carolina. I haven’t entered into the great Temple of Elevation Church. I have not worshipped at the feet of Bishop T.D. Jakes.

And, do you know what?

I’m glad.

Because I have something infinitely better.

I have a sinless High Priest who sympathizes with our weaknesses.

A sinless High Priest who took our sin upon Himself on the cross, and now pronounces absolution through His sure word.

A sinless High Priest who bids us come boldly to His throne of grace, that we might obtain mercy and grace to help in this time of need.

Repent, then, and believe this Good News.

POSTSCRIPT

I have deliberately eschewed writing here about Jakes’ embrace of the heresy of modalism as valid Christian doctrine, notwithstanding modalism’s lethal opposition to the historic orthodox Christian faith, which is necessarily Trinitarian. Yes, the offering of mainstream evangelical platforms to such a man is a cause for profound alarm and ought certainly to have us weeping in fearful repentance before the Holy One who is Truth. But this was not that post.

Additional Resources

T.D. Jakes' Sermon "Touched" - Code Orange Revival, Charlotte, NC

Your Futile Opposition To Christ

2012-01-21T12:57:00.000-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

“Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:9-11)

“In the days when persecution was more public than it is now, many persons were guilty of being informers against the Puritans, or the Quakers; their deaths were in many cases appalling, not because of any peculiar pains they endured, but because their persecutions came up to their memory in their last moments, and some of them could not rest for crying out and making acknowledgment of the injustice that they had done to good men in hunting them into prisons for worshipping God.

If any of you do not believe in Jesus, and will not be saved by him yourselves, I would recommend you to let him and his people alone, for if you oppose him you will be the losers, he will not. Your opposition is utterly futile; like a snake biting a file you will only break your own teeth. You cannot hurt the church, nor hurt the word of God. Perhaps your very opposition is one cog in the wheel to urge it on. If the thing be of God it is in vain that you fight against it. Be as wise as Haman’s wife when she warned her husband that if Mordecai was of the seed of the Jews, before whom he had begun to fall, it was no use to take up the cudgels against him. This warning he proved to be true when he was hung upon the gallows fifty cubits high. To oppose the seed royal of heaven is of no use whatever, but ensures ruin to those who engage in it.”

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, from his sermon

“Jesus, The Stumbling Stone of Unbelievers”

Mindfulness For Children: Buddhism For Tots

2012-01-20T22:00:00.001-05:00

By Marcia Montenegro (Christian Answers For the New Age)

“We are here to awaken from our illusion of separateness.”
― Thich Nhat Hanh, Zen Buddhist and author of bestsellers

“Be a lamp unto yourself.” ― Reputed to be the last words of Gautama Buddha

A friend at church gave me an article from Scholastic Parent and Child Magazine (October 2011), which had been given to her son and the other children in a public school kindergarten class to bring home. The article, “It’s All In Your Mind,” by Lynne Ticknor, promotes mindfulness, a Buddhist concept and meditation practice, and offers a brief interview of Goldie Hawn and her Mind-Up program for schools.

THE RELIGION OF IT

The article refers to mindfulness as “based in the philosophy of Buddhism” and quickly adds, “But it’s not religion” and “there are no spiritual overtones.” However, the very concept and practice of mindfulness is religious; mindfulness is the 7th step in the Buddhist Noble Eight-fold Path. Its increasing visibility and acceptance in the West is largely due to its promotion by Buddhist adherents, such as Jon Kabat-Zinn, a Zen Buddhist who has heavily influenced the health community, and by Thich Nhat Hanh, a Buddhist monk and bestselling author.

Buddhism is known as a world-denying religion. It teaches that reality as we see and experience it is not, in fact, reality.* We think it is only because we identify with our body, feelings, thoughts, sensations, and reactions, as a result of having been born into this world. There is no self (no-self is called anatman or anatta); the concept of self is a result of these false identifications with the world. Suffering is caused by desire; and birth in this world, along with our physical and mental processes, feed desire, thus continuing the cycle of desire and suffering through continual rebirth (samsara).

The only way to stop this cycle and be free of samsara – which is the goal of Buddhist practice – is to detach from desire. One of the chief methods to accomplish detachment is the practice of mindfulness. Mindfulness involves altering one’s thinking and outlook via Buddhist mindfulness meditation and practices by detaching from mind and self through nonjudgmental observation. This includes the commonly heard maxim, “Be in the present,” since the goal includes detaching from past and future.

Practicing mindfulness supposedly prepares one for a breakthrough in perception, an awakening to reality as it really is, which is formlessness (sunyata, usually translated as “emptiness”). Mindfulness is particularly emphasized in Zen Buddhism and, aside from TM (Transcendental Meditation), is the Eastern practice that has most infiltrated the West.

Although presented as spiritually neutral, the origin and goal of mindfulness belies that stance. Many are not aware that the true goal of Buddhism, nirvana, is not some kind of Buddhist heaven, but is actually the state one reaches when one has shed all attachments and illusions, thus freeing oneself from desire and rebirth. Nirvana means “to extinguish” and is the state of cessation of desire and illusion, and therefore of suffering. What is this state like? Buddhism offers no clear answer.

THE BREATHING OF IT

The article states that children are taught to focus on their breathing, “an age-old exercises in finding calm and balance – or their ‘center.’” One photograph shows a mother and a child sitting in lotus position with eyes closed. Another shows two young children (about age 6) sitting side-by-side, in a lotus position with eyes closed. Clearly, there is more than just breathing going on. The breathing technique is part and parcel of the mindfulness meditation.

Mindful meditation involves breathing a certain way, but it is also a way to transcend thinking. In fact, the mind is seen as a barrier. Focusing on slow breathing is meant to transcend conceptual thinking. Breathing in this way brings one into an altered state where critical thinking and judgment are suspended. In Buddhism, such thinking interferes with spiritual insight.

Buddhism absorbed much from Taoism, which sprang from early Chinese shamanism that believed a universal force, chi, infuses the world. In fact, Zen Buddhism is a mixture of Taoism and Buddhism which came from China and was called Chan (called Zen in Japan). Controlling breath was part of controlling and balancing chi, thus achieving health and longevity (in Taoist thinking). This idea of the breath as centering is very similar to the Taoist teaching that one must base one’s self in the flow of chi and thus balance the two forces of yin and yang.

Even if the children are not doing a full-on mindfulness meditation (which would be difficult for most children since they cannot stay so still for long), they are being introduced to it, taught it, and told that it is the way to deal with their feelings and “intense emotions.” Being told that this is how to deal with anger or fear may also give the subtle message that emotions are a bad thing.

While it’s true that taking a few deep breaths when upset may calm one down, mindfulness goes way beyond that. Mindfulness as promoted in schools is communicating to a child that he should always be calm, always clear-headed, always in control. This certainly could convey a negative message to more emotional children, and to children with various psychological, neurological, and emotional problems as well as making them self-conscious about their feelings.

We have a right to ask: Is this a healthy teaching for children? Are children, especially in the lower grades, able to handle such information? Should they be worried about their emotions? At the very least, using mindfulness should be a decision for a parent, not for the school or educators.

THE STUDIES OF IT

The article cites “studies” that mindfulness has done amazing things, such as improving memory, boosting the immune system, rendered child practitioners more optimistic, more socially adept, more compassionate, and less judgmental of themselves. Really?

Whenever we see references to studies with no further information, we should ask: Who did these studies? How were they done? How big were the studies? Have the results been published in professional peer-reviewed journals? None of that information is provided here, leading this writer to wonder if such “studies” were done by mindfulness-friendly followers or organizations.

Also, there is no way to prove that anything “boosts the immune system” since the immune system is too complex and involves many systems of the body. “Boosting the immune system” is the common claim of many fraudulent health products**

Moreover, how would one measure if a child is more optimistic or compassionate? Is this not a subjective assessment? What standards are being used? In short, this reference to studies should be dismissed since no scientific references or data is given, and the claims are unreasonably overstated. These are all indicators of claims with little or no factual data or basis.

THE HYPE OF IT

Some educators are using visualization, meditation CDs and an iPad or iPhone app called BellyBio, “that helps regulate breathing rhythms.” Guided visualization is a form of hypnosis, so this should cause alarm, if indeed this form of visualization is being used.

Most meditation CDs also use forms of hypnosis. In fact, this writer cannot conceive of a meditation CD that would not be inducing a state of hypnosis; that is just the nature of meditation CDs. And do parents really want teachers trying to “regulate breathing rhythms” in their children?

Mindfulness is now being marketed as aggressively and as deceptively as yoga has been. The word “compassion” is being joined with the term “mindfulness” (one example is a book recommended at the end of the article, Mindfulness: Mothering with Mindfulness, Compassion, and Grace by Denise Roy). Buddhist teachers make frequent use of the word “compassion” (this is very common with the Dalai Lama) but the problem is that non-Buddhists do not know what is really meant by this term.

Compassion in Buddhism is not simply having empathy or care for people. Compassion includes the Buddhist view that all non-human beings (called “sentient beings”) are in need of rebirth as humans, because only humans can attain enlightenment. Since rebirth can bring a human into a non-human state, the Buddhist must spread Buddhist teachings and work at his own enlightenment in order to help advance Buddhist truths so that all can eventually be liberated from the cycle of rebirth. In Buddhism, Buddhist enlightenment is the only way for such liberation. Buddhism may give lip service to an embrace of all religions, but Buddhism teaches that only the Buddhist path can liberate.

CONCLUSIONS

Parents needs to monitor and mind carefully what is going on in their child’s classroom. They need to ask questions about all activities!

Scholastic is the parent company of MindUP, the program started by actress Goldie Hawn, a practicing Buddhist. Scholastic, as many know, is a purveyor of many materials and programs in public schools. It is a global enterprise, creating and distributing “educational and entertaining materials and products for use in school and at home, including children's books, magazines, technology-based products, teacher materials, television programming, feature film, videos and toys. Scholastic distributes its products and services through a variety of channels, including proprietary school-based book clubs, school-based book fairs, retail stores, schools, libraries and television networks; and Scholastic.com” (http://www.scholastic.com/aboutscholastic/peoplehistory.htm).

The promotion of mindfulness by an educational corporate giant such as Scholastic is a prime example of how Eastern beliefs are being endorsed and distributed into the culture. The same thing has been happening with Yoga, which is being promoted by corporations as well as government agencies (along with such practices as Feng Shui, Tai Chi, and many forms of New Age alternative heating). Children are the most vulnerable and are totally unable to critique or assess such ideas; for that reason, they make the best targets.

I think it is too late to stop this wave of Eastern spirituality. Therefore, prayer and discernment, as well as the willingness to speak out, are needed. Parents can talk to the teacher or principal and opt their child out based on religious views. Even if the school denies that mindfulness (or Yoga) is religious, the parent can state that he or she believes it conflicts with his or her religion and how the child is being raised. There is much data online that would help make a parent’s case that mindfulness (or Yoga) is religious.

*“Developing wisdom is a process of bringing our minds into accordance with the way things really are. Through this process we gradually remove the incorrect perceptions of reality we have had since the beginningless time.” (The Dalai Lama, An Open Heart [Boston/New York/London: Little, Brown and Company, 2001], 86).

** On boosting the immune system:

“The idea of boosting your immunity is enticing, but the ability to do so has proved elusive for several reasons. The immune system is precisely that — a system, not a single entity. To function well, it requires balance and harmony. There is still much that researchers don’t know about the intricacies and interconnectedness of the immune response. For now, there are no scientifically proven direct links between lifestyle and enhanced immune function . . . < . . .> . . . researchers are still trying to understand how the immune system works and how to interpret measurements of immune function.” http://www.health.harvard.edu/flu-resource-center/how-to-boost-your-immune-system.htm

“So when something allegedly boosts the immune system, I have to ask what part. How? What is it strengthening/boosting/supporting? Antibodies? Complement? White cells? Are the results from test tubes (often meaningless), animal studies or human studies? And if in human studies, what was the study population. Are the results even meaningful? Or small, barely statistically significant, outcomes in poorly done studies? The answer, as we shall see, is usually nothing.” http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/boost-your-immune-system/

NOTE ON WRITER: The writer of this article was involved for about 14 years in various forms of Eastern meditation practices, particularly Zen. She is familiar with the effects of such meditation, which gradually lead to a change in one’s worldview (perception of self and reality).

Companion article by Marcia Montenegro: “Mindfulness: No-Mind Over Matter”

John Piper Tweet

2012-01-20T16:39:00.001-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

Our thoughts? If Dr. Piper wanted to say that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and that no one comes to the Father but by Him, there are better ways to say that. Such as, oh, I don't know, quoting the actual Scripture verse rather than coming up with an obscure Universalist haiku. Just sayin'

Additional Resources

John Piper Encouraging Lectio Divina

John Piper's Bethlehem Baptist Church Endorsing Books by Contemplative Spirituality Mystics Dallas Willard and Richard Foster

Beth Moore and John Piper Lead "Lectio Divina Lite" Prayer at Passion 2012 Conference

We're Really Not Out To "Get" Beth Moore and John Piper

Just Do Something: How to Make a Decision Without Dreams, Visions, Fleeces, Open Doors, Random Bible Verses, Casting Lots, Liver Shivers, Writing in the Sky, etc. - by Kevin DeYoung

Just Do Something - by Kevin DeYoung (audio)

Secular Interview About What Mysticism Is - BBC Radio Program

What Is Mysticism? (Sola Sisters Article)

What Is Mysticism? (3-Part Series by Dr. Gary Gilley) - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5

On John Piper and Lectio Divina

Biblical Silence vs. Mystical Silence

Testimony of a Former Mystic

Rick Warren Gets John Piper's Stamp of Approval?

Dr. John Piper and Unanswered Questions

Enough! Scripture Twisting is Not 'Doctrinal and Sound'

Rick Warren at DG 2010: Not An April Fool's Joke?

Billy Graham: "There's so much that we have in common (with the Roman Catholic church)."

2012-01-19T12:58:00.001-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

On Brannon Howse's 1/16/12 Worldview Radio show, host Brannon Howse discussed how he slowly, over time, came to the shocking realization that the revered and well regarded pastor Billy Graham had strong ties to the Roman Catholic church, as well as some startling views on the exclusivity of Christ in salvation. From his upcoming book Religious Trojan Horse:

"Hosting a national radio program five days a week for many years allows me to hear from lots of people that called in to the program, as well as from those that email me. For many years, I wrongfully ignored the warnings that many people would send concerning the need to look into Billy Graham's history. To be honest, I just did not want to believe that the man that I'd watched on television since the age of 3 had chinks in his armor.....Perhaps even now, you as you read this chapter, you're feeling the same way I once did. If so, I completely understand. However, I finally came to the point where I knew that the importance of the gospel, and the protection of the gospel, must outweigh my personal feelings. In other words, I must be committed to biblical principles above personalities." (Brannon Howse, Religious Trojan Horse)

Howse's guest Chris Pinto, a former Roman Catholic, explains that linking with Roman Catholics simply must not be done. Yes, the Roman Catholic Church teaches about God and Jesus and the Cross and Salvation, but they also add to the finished work of Christ on the Cross by requiring works of their adherents. This is no small thing. In the book of Galatians, Paul rebuked as Peter for allowing the Judaizers to add the "works" of circumcision and law-keeping as additional requirements for salvation.

“When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas (Peter) in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.'” (Galatians 2:14-16)

What the "circumcision party" did in this passage was heresy, but let's not just nod and embrace this truth as we read scripture without understanding that this same heresy is alive and well today. This heresy of Faith + Works is at the heart of the Roman Catholic Church and what it teaches, and this is why we must not link to them. True, born again believers know that salvation comes by faith alone through grace alone in Christ alone. There is no additional work that can be added or must be done for salvation.

“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-10)

Now, does this mean that the Christian simply gets a Get Into Heaven free pass by claiming belief in Christ, and then will continue to live in unrepentant immorality? No, the books of James and Galatians (among others) address these fallacies of "decisional regeneration" and "easy believism." A true born again believer who is in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit will bear good fruit, will put away the sins of their former life, and will become more and more conformed to the image of Christ over time. But these actions will flow out of a heart overwhelmed with thankfulness at God's great mercy in salvation, and will be empowered by the Holy Spirit. A true born again believer does not grudgingly put away sin and do good works, as if drinking down bad medicine. Yes, there is a battle with the flesh, but it is a battle. Sin is never truly enjoyed by the regenerated Christian: it is fought against and agonized about and prayed over and repented of. Is this a sad, torturous existence, with the believer looking sadly back at his old "fun" life and doing what he "should" do instead? No, in fact it is a joy and an honor to strive to know God's precepts and pray for God's grace and enabling power to live a righteous life. It is not bad medicine grudgingly drunk down so as to get the benefit of heaven. Good works flow from a heart that is overjoyed to be reconciled to a high and holy God, and thankful for his Word which show us what a righteous life looks like that we might strive for that mark by the power of the Holy Spirit. This is sort of a nutshell view of the biblical view of salvation and the Christian's life, but this is not the Roman Catholic view of salvation, which comes through Faith in Jesus PLUS confession, going to mass, doing good works, etc., etc., etc.

So with that in mind, please listen to this important Worldview Radio program, which includes audio clips of Billy Graham discussing his affection for the Roman Catholic Church, and seemingly displaying little, if any, understanding that the Catholic church teaches "another gospel." Some partially transcribed clips from this show include the following:

Billy Graham: "They (the Roman Catholic Church) open their arms and welcome us, and we have the support of the Catholic church almost everywhere we go. And I that think we must come to the place where we keep our eyes on Jesus Christ, and not on what denomination or what church or what group we belong to."

***

David Frost (discussing Islam): "The fastest growing religion in the world.... "

Billy Graham: "The tremendous discipline that they have in Islam in the sense that there's a judgment if you do wrong, and there's a tremendous hunt that people have that you are Islamic. Suppose you die on the battlefield fighting for Islam, the promises they give you for the first thousand years would make any young man say, 'Well, I think that's what I'd like to have.' They have so many things. And I think Islam is misunderstood too, because Mohammed had a great respect for Jesus, and he called Jesus the greatest of the prophets except himself. And I think that we're closer to Islam than we really think we are."

***

Billy Graham: "I felt that God had called me to love all the people, whatever church they went to, whether it was Catholic or Protestant or who, and work with them. And today we have almost a hundred percent Catholic support in this country, that was not true even twenty years ago. And the bishops and the archbishops and the Pope is our friend. We have plans underway now for a couple of events that will probably be world news about our relationship with the Roman Catholic Church because there's so much that we have in common, and so much of what we believe......They believe in Christ. They believe in the death of Christ on the cross and his resurrection. "

***

Below are additional quotes from Billy Graham that are not contained in this interview, but which also paint a troubling picture of what Billy Graham believed. Obviously, as Christians we want to put the best possible construction on Graham's words and teaching. For myself, I think maybe one misstatement by itself wouldn't be that troubling, but with Graham, it's become sort of a cumulative thing. These transcribed audio clips, taken together, are concerning in that they challenge the very heart of the Christian gospel message, and that is the exclusivity of Christ in salvation. I'll close this post with another partially transcribed interview between Robert Schuller and Billy Graham (and about which John MacArthur has also commented):

Dr. Schuller: "Tell me, what is the future of Christianity?"

Dr. Graham: "Well, Christianity and being a true believer, you know, I think there's the body of Christ which comes from all the Christian groups around the world, or outside the Christian groups. I think that everybody that loves Christ or knows Christ, whether they're conscious of it or not, they're members of the body of Christ. And I don't think that we're going to see a great sweeping revival that will turn the whole world to Christ at any time."

What God is doing today is calling people out of the world for His name. Whether they come from the Muslim world, or the Buddhist world, or the Christian world, or the non-believing world, they are members of the body of Christ because they've been called by God. They may not even know the name of Jesus, but they know in their hearts they need something that they don't have and they turn to the only light they have and I think they're saved and they're going to be with us in heaven."

Dr. Schuller: "What I hear you saying is that it's possible for Jesus Christ to come into a human heart and soul and life even if they've been born in darkness and have never had exposure to the Bible. Is that a correct interpretation of what you're saying?"

Dr. Graham: "Yes it is because I believe that. I've met people in various parts of the world in tribal situations that they have never seen a Bible or heard about a Bible, have never heard of Jesus but they've believed in their hearts that there is a God and they tried to live a life that was quite apart from the surrounding community in which they lived."

Dr. Schuller: "This is fantastic. I'm so thrilled to hear you say that. There's a wideness in God's mercy."

Dr. Graham: "There is. There definitely is."

Additional Resources

John MacArthur Discussing Billy Graham's "Wider Mercy" View

Doctrinal Errors With the "Wider Mercy" Doctrine

Matt Chandler Goes To Code Orange Where He Exalts Christ, Confronts Narcissistic Man-Centered Preaching, and poof He's Gone

2012-01-18T11:32:00.007-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

For those unaware of the latest brouhaha in Evangelicalism, let me first lay out the facts. Steven Furtick, megachurch pastor at Elevation Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, is currently hosting a revival which is running from January 11-22 and is promoted as "a 12 night worship experience to set the stage for 2012." The event is entitled "Code Orange" to indicate, according to Elevation Church's website, "a heightened sense of urgency....something significant is about to happen." The line-up of speakers for Code Orange includes Craig Groeschel, Jentezen Franklin, Matt Chandler, Christine Caine, Ed Young, Israel Houghton, Perry Noble, James MacDonald, T.D. Jakes, etc.

So Matt Chandler, pastor of The Village Church in Highland, Texas, and one of the invited speakers at Code Orange, stood up at Elevation Church and delivered what turned out to be a barn burner of a sermon. In his distinctive delivery style (that is to say, humble, loving, direct and at times laugh-out-loud funny), Chandler took aim at the kind of preaching that has been so aptly termed "Narcissistic Eisegeis," and at which Steven Furtick, and so many others in the seeker sensitive movement, excel.

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Narcissistic Eisegesis ("Narcigesis") = Forcing the Bible to mean something you already want it to mean by superimposing yourself into the meaning of the passage, rather than interpreting Scripture for what it means about God, and letting the Scripture simply speak for itself. Conversely, seeking to understand Scripture for what it reveals about God is known as Exegesis, and is also sometimes referred to as the "Literal" or "Grammatical-Historical" approach to interpreting Scripture. Example: The Narcissitic Eisegesis version of David and Goliath would be about you fighting your personal "giants" (i.e., problems, difficulties, setbacks, etc.). The Exegetical approach to interpreting David and Goliath would reveal, instead, an historical account of David's faith and God supernaturally intervening in an impossible situation for his own glory.

Matt Chandler,
Pastor of The Village Church

Now, back to Elevation Church, Code Orange, and Matt Chandler's sermon. First of all, before the letters start, I am aware that Matt Chandler is affiliated with Acts 29, has contemplative authors on his site and has claimed audible words from God. I'm not putting a stamp of approval on any of that by posting Chandler's sermon. The church is in a big muddle today, and I truly do think that we're in the end times deception, such that even the elect might be deceived. But here's a thought: maybe part of that playing itself out is that some will appear to be slipping, but when push comes to shove, will stand up and preach Jesus Christ and him crucified. The desire, of course, is for the ones who appear to be slipping to demonstrate that their feet are firmly planted on the Rock of our Salvation - Christ - and it appears to me that Matt Chandler is demonstrating just that. Because really, for Chandler to go to Elevation Church and preach as he did? To stand up before thousands and thousands of people, knowing that his message would not be well received? That could not have been easy, and it demonstrates a fear of God, rather than a fear of man. So the sermon rocked, Christ was exalted, and man was humbled. I can only speak for myself, but I personally need sermons that pierce me and break me and make me lie down on the floor, repenting and crying, and also remind me of the only hope that I have, which is not that I can be great and conquer problems but that God is great and has made a way for wretched sinners (like me) to be reconciled to himself.

But now for the controversial part. Chandler's sermon was immediately pulled from the Code Orange rebroadcasts. This was pointed out by several Christian writers, including Chris Rosebrough of Fighting for Faith and Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries. Then, the sermon reappeared in subsequent rebroadcasts with a cryptic message from Elevation's graphic designer about a decision being made to "reformat the content" for the purpose of focusing "the broadcast on Jesus."

So we'll let you be the judge. Matt Chandler's sermon is posted above, where you can listen to it in its entirety. Was this a sermon that should have been pulled because it did not focus on Jesus?

Additional Resources

Elevation Church Pulls Matt Chandler's Sermon

Grow Up. Settle Down. Keep Reforming. Advice for the Young, Restless and Reformed

Code Orange Revival: To Focus on Jesus, We Cut The Only Sermon That Pointed People To Him

Beth Moore: "(God) began to say to me, ‘I’m gonna tell you something right now, Beth, and boy you write this one down, and you say it as often as I give you utterance to say it....'"

2012-01-11T18:07:00.004-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

Additional Resources

Beth Moore's Dangerous Bible Twisting (Chris Rosebrough, Pirate Christian Radio)

Beth Moore Seeking Direct Revelations from God?

Beth Moore the Mystic?

Beth Moore and the Be Still DVD - An Ode To Silence

Beth Moore Moving In A Word of Faith/"Positive Confession" Direction? (Reverend Justin Peters)

Mystical Youth Ministry

What Is Mysticism? (3-Part Series by Dr. Gary Gilley) - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5

We're Really Not Out To "Get" John Piper and Beth Moore

2012-01-11T13:46:00.013-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack and Cathy Mathews

The Passion 2012 conference recently finished the Atlanta leg of its tour, with notable keynote speakers Dr. John Piper and Beth Moore among the lineup. A controversy erupted when it appeared that during one segment of the conference that the speakers on stage (including Dr. Piper and Beth Moore) were engaging in some kind of mystical experience, that had similarities to the Roman Catholic mystical practice of Lectio Divina. It was also simultaneously reported that John Piper's Desiring God website had published a post by writer Jonathan Parnell in which Christians were actually encouraged to incorporate the practice of Lectio Divina into their prayer lives. The blogosphere erupted with discussion about both of these things, including our own blog and Facebook page, with some commenters confused, some not surprised by this development, and also a large contingent of commenters I'll call the Matthew Seven One-ers ("Who are you to judge!") calling us out for, that's right, judging.

Whew.

With all that in mind, my sister and I would like to answer to the charge that we're hatin' haters who just want to hate on people. So this post is written in an effort to show that neither one of us is out to "get" either Dr. Piper or Beth Moore.

First, Dr. Piper....

Dr. Piper is highly respected in the evangelical community, and for good reason. He has written scores of very biblical books and articles, he is pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church, and is known for being a staunch protector and defender of the purity of the gospel. This is why his apparent veering from the Reformation principle of Sola Scriptura (or, the idea that we hear from God through Scripture alone) by his participation in a seemingly mystical practice and his website's outright endorsement of Lectio Divina is all the more distressing.

My sister, who came out of the same New Age mysticism that I did, has written before about there being a time, when she was a very new Christian, that John Piper's teaching actually helped her get free of mysticism. In fact, she credits this particular video as being instrumental in helping her understand the biblical model for prayer:

At about the two minute mark in the above video, John Piper makes the following statement which is just a wonderful teaching on the biblical practice of prayer:

John Piper: "(You might ask me) why don't you just say (prayer), then, is communicating with God? That would be a little less awkward than 'intentionally conveying a message.' Why don't you just say, prayer is communicating with God? And here's the reason I tried that and rejected it. It's because it sounds when you say that like you mean you're communicating that way (pointing up to heaven) and He's communicating this way (pointing down to himself), and that's prayer. And that's not prayer. The Bible never calls God's communication to us 'prayer.' Never. And we get ourselves into a big muddle when we concoct phrases to that effect. Like his talking to us is a kind of prayer. It isn't."

Cathy's comment:

"One of the saddest things to me is that John Piper actually helped me come out of my Christian mysticism. When I began realizing that a lot of what is called Christian teaching these days is just pagan practices sprinkled with Christian terminology and some Bible verses, I looked to the Bible and to good Bible teachers to help me answer two basic questions: How does God communicate with us? And what is prayer? It was some teaching by John Piper specifically on that second question that really helped me. He was very clear: prayer is us talking to God- it is not like a telephone conversation where I talk and then God talks. I came to the realization that God speaks to us through scripture. I could stop looking for signs and clues and hunches and feelings- I could just read God's Word and know that God was speaking clearly and openly to me. It was so freeing."

And in fact, after Cathy made this comment on a recent blog post, in reflecting back I also remembered how she had labored over this issue with me when I was a new Christian and she was discipling me. She really worked to help me understand this strange new concept of how it is that God communicates with us. It was extremely freeing for me as well, having come out of mysticism, where you're always trying to figure out out if the sign/nudge/dream/vision/impression/etc. that you received was really from God. It was just, open up your Bible and read. Really?? Really. So freeing. So unmystical. Not to mention, so biblical.

Now for Beth Moore....

"Thank you God, that you are trustworthy. Thank you that you promise to make our paths straight. Please help us to acknowledge you in all our ways."

This is the prayer that my 10 year old son prayed this morning during Bible study, based on principles for praying that I taught him. I learned these principles for prayer from a Bible study by Beth Moore (Praying God's Word), one of the first Bible studies I ever took. Before the class had begun, I remember being so curious about what was meant by the title of the book: how could one "pray God's word?" What did that mean? Now remember, I had come out of New Age Hinduism and paganism. There is no concept of a personal God in the New Age. In the New Age, there are lots and lots and lots of techniques from lots of different cultures that are used as a means to get to "God" - so there is some understanding of there being a "God" out there. But there's not at all a biblical understanding of God: that God is not only transcendent but He is also personal. God is a God who not only hears the prayers of his people, but He also has the power to answer them. He is a God who not only intimately and deeply cherishes his people, but He also disciplines them if need be, as a loving parent would discipline his children. These are just completely foreign concepts about God for New Agers. The New Age "God" is an impersonal essence, or energy, or vibration, and somehow, people find ways to tap into this God for the usual things (power, love, success); or, they access or experience this "God," through various mystical practices.

So with this as my background, I went into the Praying God's Word Bible study by Beth Moore, and I was just completely undone when I came to an understanding that the God of the universes would not only allow us, but want us to pray directly to him, to come boldly before the Throne of grace, and into his very presence. The class consisted of each member being given an acrylic holder that contained a large number of small index cards on which Scripture was written. We were taught to read the Scripture, dwell on the passage for a few minutes, and then pray the Scripture back to God. Seems pretty remedial doesn't it? But this was an entirely new concept to me, so much so that in the middle of one class, I was so overcome with joy about knowing, finally knowing really and truly, how to speak to God that I began to weep so profusely I couldn't even explain to my (concerned!) friends why I was crying. So for that study alone, I have tremendous goodwill toward Beth Moore. To this day, I pray using the principles for prayer as taught to me in that class, and have now taught these principles to my own children. And that is why I'm deeply, deeply grieved to have watched Beth Moore slowly become more and mystical in both her manner of speech and her teaching over time.

So back to the Passion 2012 conference. If you happen to click on the Passion 2012 graphic at the top of this post, you will see a tagline that says:

My question is this: Do 18-25 year olds living in our postmodern culture really need to be encouraged to think of God in mystical, subjective and experiential terms (as the Passion 2012 Conference seemed to be teaching)? Is it wise to model to them that prayer is praying, then listening for God's words in response (as Dr. John Piper, Beth Moore, Francis Chan and Louie Giglio did in Session 5)? Is it biblical?

I would submit, in fact, that 18-25 year olds of today are already far too experiential and subjective in their worldview. They need to be re-trained to understand, as John Piper has taught so eloquently in the past, that biblical prayer is "intentionally conveying a message to God," not praying, and then listening for God's audible answer back to us.

May we all strive to be more biblical in how we approach God, remembering that He detests mystical practices, and continually seek to conform our prayer life as closely as possible to the biblical model for what that should be.

Additional Resources

John Piper Encouraging Lectio Divina

Lectio Divina and "Hearing God's Voice"

John Piper's Bethlehem Baptist Church Endorsing Books by Contemplative Spirituality Mystics Dallas Willard and Richard Foster

Beth Moore and John Piper Lead "Lectio Divina Lite" Prayer at Passion 2012 Conference

Just Do Something: How to Make a Decision Without Dreams, Visions, Fleeces, Open Doors, Random Bible Verses, Casting Lots, Liver Shivers, Writing in the Sky, etc. - by Kevin DeYoung

Just Do Something - by Kevin DeYoung (audio)

On John Piper and Lectio Divina

Biblical Silence vs. Mystical Silence

Secular Interview About What Mysticism Is - BBC Radio Program

What Is Mysticism? (Sola Sisters Article)

What Is Mysticism? (3-Part Series by Dr. Gary Gilley) - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5

Testimony of a Former Mystic

Dr. John Piper's Church Endorsing Books by Contemplative Spirituality Mystics

2012-01-11T00:19:00.009-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

A few days ago, the Christian research and discernment community was awash in the alarming news that Desiring God's website had published a post endorsing a mystical form of prayer developed by cloistered Roman Catholic monks called "Lectio Divina." Social network sites Facebook and Twitter were covered up with discussion about this. Discernment site Apprising published several articles about it. Christian radio host Chris Rosebrough devoted an entire show to the topic. Other radio shows discussed this topic, even if only briefly. And then something great happened: the reference to Lectio Divina was removed from the article, and this entry was left in its place:

Update: Formerly I listed Lectio Divina as a third system for prayer. I've since removed it for the confusion it has caused. We do not endorse contemplative spirituality. The main point I'd like to recommend is using the text of Scripture as an organizer for our prayers — prayers that are exegetically faithful and gospel rich. I'm sorry for introducing the category.(online source)

I really, really, really hope and pray that John Piper, Desiring God, Bethlehem Baptist Church, et al, will truly awaken to the dangers of Contemplative Spirituality Mysticism. With that in mind, and putting the best construction on the updated entry at Desiring God regarding contemplative spirituality, I've made this very brief post pointing out that there are still books by Contemplative Spirituality Mystics being endorsed at Dr. Piper's church. Maybe they just need to be made aware of who the players are in Contemplative Spirituality Mysticism.

Bethlehem Baptist Church has the following books by Contemplative Spirituality Mystics available for study:

(Prayer: Finding The Heart's True Home, by Richard Foster - Bethlehem Baptist Church, online source)

(The Spirit of the Disciplines: Understanding How God Changes Lives, by Dallas Willard - Bethlehem Baptist Church, online source)

Additional Resources

Richard Foster - Celebration of Deception (CIC Article, Bob DeWaay)

The Dangers of Spiritual Formation and Spiritual Disciplines, A Critique of Dallas Willard and The Spirit of the Disciplines (CIC Article, Bob DeWaay)

Lectio Divina and "Hearing God's Voice"

John Piper Encouraging Lectio Divina

John Piper's Bethlehem Baptist Church Endorsing Books by Contemplative Spirituality Mystics Dallas Willard and Richard Foster

Beth Moore and John Piper Lead "Lectio Divina Lite" Prayer at Passion 2012 Conference

Just Do Something: How to Make a Decision Without Dreams, Visions, Fleeces, Open Doors, Random Bible Verses, Casting Lots, Liver Shivers, Writing in the Sky, etc. - by Kevin DeYoung

Just Do Something - by Kevin DeYoung (audio)

On John Piper and Lectio Divina

Biblical Silence vs. Mystical Silence

Testimony of a Former Mystic

What Is Mysticism? (Sola Sisters article)

What Is Mysticism? (3-Part Series by Dr. Gary Gilley) - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5

Mystical Youth Ministry

John Piper Encouraging Lectio Divina

2012-01-07T14:19:00.019-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

UPDATE: As of Tuesday, January 10, the Desiring God article in which the Roman Catholic mystical practice of Lectio Divina was promoted has been changed. Notes author Jonathan Parnell: "Formerly I listed Lectio Divina as a third system for prayer. I've since removed it for the confusion it has caused. We do not endorse contemplative spirituality. The main point I'd like to recommend is using the text of Scripture as an organizer for our prayers — prayers that are exegetically faithful and gospel rich. I'm sorry for introducing the category.

This post should be filed under the category of "Very, Very Sad."

In a recent article by Ken Silva of Apprising, Silva reported that Bible teacher Beth Moore and respected theologian John Piper participated in a sort of "Lectio Divina Lite" prayer at the Passion 2012 Conference going on in Atlanta right now. But even more than that, Dr. John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, is now straight up encouraging the mystical practice of Lectio Divina to his followers on his Desiring God website. A recently published article by Jonathan Parnell at Desiring God, which provides "God centered resources from the Ministry of John Piper," encourages readers to learn Lectio Divina, a mystical practice developed by Roman Catholic monks. Some of what is written in this article is very good, but I have to ask the obvious question here: Should we really be getting any aspect of our theology from monks who cloistered themselves (in direct opposition to what Scripture teaches), and who dabbled in pagan mysticism? Fellow Christians, this is disturbing to me and should be for all of us who claim the name of Christ. Dr. Piper has been a highly esteemed theologian for years, maybe decades. This is yet another exhortation that we are to follow God, and not a man.

The Desiring God article in question points us to author Kenneth Boa, a Thomas Merton quoting mystic. That's right, the very same Thomas Merton who said he wanted “to become as good a Buddhist as I can.”

Kenneth Boa, Devotional Spirituality, Part 7, "The Practice of Sacred Reading"

While it could be hoped that Kenneth Boa means nothing more than deeply contemplating Scripture (as Scripture commands), sadly, he makes it clear in one of his articles that, when discussing the practice "Contemplative Prayer," he is not merely talking about deeply and mindfully contemplating God's Word (as many Christians might think this term means). No, what he is pointing his readers toward is how to enter into an altered state of consciousness not for the purpose of learning mindfully about God, but to instead have some kind of subjective impression or experience of God. This is mysticism.

Kenneth Boa, Devotional Spirituality, Part 6, "The Practice of Sacred Reading"

Nowhere in Scripture are we taught that we have to get really silent and "listen" for God to speak to us, or, wait silently for God to "shape" us in some mystical way. Yes, the Holy Spirit guides us, and yes, there is some mystery about how this happens, but we have to go by Scripture. Jesus taught:

"Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength." Mark 12:30 (my emphasis)

"But you, dear friends, must build each other up in your most holy faith, pray in the power of the Holy Spirit." Jude 1:20

"Pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints." Ephesians 6:18 (my emphasis)

We are to pray in the Spirit, staying mindfully alert. This is the Christian practice of prayer, and it stands in direct contrast to the pagan practice of "mystical prayer," which is to empty one's mind and go into an altered state of consciousness, sometimes called an Alpha state. Scripture doesn't teach going into an altered state of consciousness so that we can get some kind of mystical message from God. However, pagans of all stripes DO engage in this mind emptying practice.

First let me start with explaining why a person is unable to learn mindfully about God in an altered state of consciousness: it is because the mind, after following the techniques encouraged by Kenneth Boa (and now the Desiring God's website), is now in a controlled, light hypnotic trance. These techniques enable people to go into a state in which they are neither fully awake, nor fully asleep....they are somewhere in the middle. They are in an Alpha state. But in this state (well known throughout the occult world, incidentally), the mind is parked. It's in neutral. It can only receive information, much like a radio receiver, and is unable to critically process data. And as mentioned above, mystics throughout the ages have always had "culturally personalized" techniques for achieving this state of mindlessness:

Hindus/Buddhists - Mantra meditation

Muslim Sufis - Chanting and ritual dancing

Judaism - Kabbalah

Chinese/Japanese - Taoism

Native American Indians - Drumming and peyote

Roman Catholic Monks - Lectio Divina, Contemplative Prayer

All of these mystics - with widely divergent cultural customs and differences - have one thing in common: some kind of technique for shutting down the mind, and something we are never told to do in Scripture ("Be alert!"). My Christian friends, this practice of emptying the mind is dangerous, dangerous teaching, and as a former mystic, I can attest to the fact that, rather than leading one to God, it leads practitioners instead into the demonic realm. Please pray that God would open Dr. Piper's eyes to the dangers of this practice his website is now encouraging.

ADDED NOTE 1/10/2012: My sister made a very good comment in the comment section below about there being a time as a new Christian, for her, when John Piper's teaching actually helped her get free of mysticism (because she came out of the same New Age mysticism that I did). And she's right: there was a time when John Piper did not teach these things. Here was her comment:

"One of the saddest things to me is that John Piper actually helped me come out of my Christian mysticism. When I began realizing that a lot of what is called Christian teaching these days is just pagan practices sprinkled with Christian terminology and some Bible verses, I looked to the the Bible and to good Bible teaches to help me answer two basic questions: How does God communicate with us? And what is prayer? It was some teaching by John Piper specifically on that second question that really helped me. He was very clear: prayer is us talking to God- it is not like a telephone conversation where I talk and then God talks. He said God speaks to us through scripture. I could stop looking for signs and clues and hunches and feelings- I could just read God's Word and know that God was speaking clearly and openly to me. It was so freeing."

And in fact, after Cathy commented, in reflecting back I also remembered how she had labored over this issue with me when I was a new Christian and she was discipling me. She really worked to help me understand this strange new concept of how it is that God communicates with us. It was extremely freeing for me as well, having come out of mysticism, where you're always trying to figure out out if the sign/nudge/ dream/vision/impression / etc. that you received was really from God. It was just, open up your Bible and read. Really? Really. So freeing So unmystical. Not to mention, so biblical.

Additional Resources

John Piper's Bethlehem Baptist Church Endorsing Books by Contemplative Spirituality Mystics Dallas Willard and Richard Foster

Beth Moore and John Piper Lead "Lectio Divina Lite" Prayer at Passion 2012 Conference

Just Do Something: How to Make a Decision Without Dreams, Visions, Fleeces, Open Doors, Random Bible Verses, Casting Lots, Liver Shivers, Writing in the Sky, etc. - by Kevin DeYoung

Just Do Something - by Kevin DeYoung (audio)

Secular Interview About What Mysticism Is - BBC Radio Program

What Is Mysticism? (Sola Sisters Article)

What Is Mysticism? (3-Part Series by Dr. Gary Gilley) - Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 and Part 5

On John Piper and Lectio Divina

Biblical Silence vs. Mystical Silence

Testimony of a Former Mystic

Rick Warren Gets John Piper's Stamp of Approval?

Dr. John Piper and Unanswered Questions

Enough! Scripture Twisting is Not 'Doctrinal and Sound'

Rick Warren at DG 2010: Not An April Fool's Joke?

Rick Warren: Driven by Destiny?

"Men, protect your daughters!"

2012-01-05T09:32:00.005-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

“Picture this: Some 17 year old snot nosed punk comes over to take out your daughter, and you say, 'No you aren't worthy of her.' (Immediately everyone is up in arms over your 'judgmental' and 'harsh' position, and for 'breaking your daughter’s heart.') Ok, so let's put it another way now: You have a beautiful, brand new $200,000 Ferrari Testarossa in front of your house, and a snot nosed 17 year old punk comes over to take it for a spin. Would you hand him the keys? See, what your problem is, is that you value a car more than your daughter. Men, protect your daughters!” - Dr. Voddie Baucham

Additional Resources

What He Must Be: ...If He Wants to Marry My Daughter by Voddie Baucham

"What He Must Be," a balanced review by Gary Gilley

"What He Must Be" Radio Series, Family Life Radio

The Critical Need For Christlike Manhood, by Voddie Baucham

When Is A Young Man Ready For Marriage? by Voddie Baucham

What A Father Looks For In A Suitor, by Voddie Baucham

The Importance of Biblically Preparing For Marriage, by Voddie Baucham

Biblical Youth Ministry and the Sufficiency of Scripture, by Voddie Baucham

Dating, Courtship and Marriage - by Paul Washer

"Courageous" Movie Trailer

Is Catholicism just another Christian denomination? Yes, according to bestselling Bible study teacher Beth Moore.

2012-01-03T10:18:00.001-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

Additional Resources

A Chart With Christian/Catholic Views Side-By-Side (courtesy of former Roman Catholic priest Richard Bennett)

Beth Moore's Dangerous Bible Twisting (Chris Rosebrough, Fighting For the Faith radio show)

Beth Moore Recommends "Jesus Calling" Book Claiming Direct Divine Revelation

"The human heart is a factory of idols." (John Calvin)

2012-01-01T17:01:00.002-05:00

Posted by Christine Pack

"When trials come these aren't punishments - ('I've done something bad - God is angry ') -- it's interventions. ("I am enslaved to something smaller than Jesus and God in his amazing grace is coming to set me free!") And in many cases the pain that a lot of us experience is the pain of God prying open our hands and taking away from us something that we have held onto more tightly than him. And it feels like the flesh is being ripped off our bones. But what we don't realize is in that moment God is setting us free. He's doing surgery on us not to hurt us but to liberate us. That's a good thing. So all of that to say that trials by themselves do not rob you of joy. Idolatry does. If you're suffering and you're angry and you're bitter and you're joyless it means that you've idolized and felt entitled to whatever it is you're losing. Entitlement and self pity stem from our belief that we deserve more than what we're getting (love, attention, respect, approval) and that means that joylessness and bitterness in the crucible of pain happens. When we lose something or are losing something that we've held onto more tightly than God. So if you're angry, if you're bitter, if you're joyless, if you're going through a trying time, as we'll see in a minute - don't first look at what problems exist OUTSIDE of you that may or may not be causing the trial. Look for the primary problem INSIDE of you and say what is it that God might be taking away from me in order to liberate me? There's nothing like trials to prove who we are and to prove what it is we're really living for. So how is your present disappointment, discouragement, or grief a window on what has actually captured your heart?

- Tullian Tchividjian (Senior Pastor, Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church)

Additional Resources

The Gospel In Relationships

Institute for Nouthetic Studies

NANC - National Association of Nouthetic Counselors

Psychology - Just Another Broken Cistern

Conflict Resolution (Dr. Ernie Baker)

Sola Sisters

T.D. Jakes: Through a Glass Blurrily

All That TBN Stuff Is Real, Right?

Oneness Pentecostalism, and How "Evil" Isn't Always Obvious

ER2 Q&A with a Former Oneness Pastor

A Measured Response to Bryan Crawford Loritts' Request for the Reformed Community to “Repent” of their Criticism of T.D. Jakes

POSTSCRIPT

UPDATE

File this one under "Oh, the irony...."

Tom Chantry on ER2

Carl Trueman and The Elephant Room

Attention, Elephant Room Security Personnel...

Talk Show Host Chris Rosebrough Threatened With Arrest At The Elephant Room II

Hypocrisy Reaches New Heights in The Elephant Room

A Review of T.D. Jakes' Code Orange Revival Sermon

POSTSCRIPT

Your Futile Opposition To Christ

Mindfulness For Children: Buddhism For Tots

John Piper Tweet

Billy Graham: "There's so much that we have in common (with the Roman Catholic church)."

Matt Chandler Goes To Code Orange Where He Exalts Christ, Confronts Narcissistic Man-Centered Preaching, and *poof* He's Gone

Beth Moore: "(God) began to say to me, ‘I’m gonna tell you something right now, Beth, and boy you write this one down, and you say it as often as I give you utterance to say it....'"

We're Really Not Out To "Get" John Piper and Beth Moore

Dr. John Piper's Church Endorsing Books by Contemplative Spirituality Mystics

John Piper Encouraging Lectio Divina

"Men, protect your daughters!"

Is Catholicism just another Christian denomination? Yes, according to bestselling Bible study teacher Beth Moore.

"The human heart is a factory of idols." (John Calvin)

Matt Chandler Goes To Code Orange Where He Exalts Christ, Confronts Narcissistic Man-Centered Preaching, and poof He's Gone