30 September 2011

Playing nice with heretics

by Phil Johnson

"I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them" (Romans 16:17)

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house or give him any greeting, for whoever greets him takes part in his wicked works" (2 John 10-11).

oday Tim Challies has an item about James MacDonald's decision to invite T. D. Jakes to participate at Elephant Room 2. Some of Tim's commenters think it's a fine idea for MacDonald to extend a cordial welcome to someone whose teaching is highly suspect so that he can define and defend himself.

Mark Driscoll expressed a similar opinion in his blogpost yesterday. He sees the Jakes invitation as an opportunity for men who differ on fundamental doctrines to "speak to one another face-to-face rather than about one another blog-to-blog and tweet-to-tweet."

That all sounds very nice and cordial, and it appeals to values that are highly prized nowadays, but is it a biblical way to respond to heresy? Can you imagine Paul proposing a friendly sharing of the platform with the heretics who were troubling the Galatian churches? How different would the apostle John's advice in his second epistle have been (not to mention his legendary encounter with Cerinthus) if he had embraced the values of our more "enlightened" age?

Anyway, here are my thoughts, as posted in the combox over at Challies:

[Commenter at Challies]: "Doesn't basic civil discourse allow people to define themselves"?

No. That's pretty much what the postmodern rules of engagement say. But Jesus said, "You will recognize them by their fruits" (Matthew 1:16). In other words, we need to determine whether someone is a heretic or not by examining what [s]he actually teaches, not by what that person claims of himself when [s]he is under fire.

Scripture is emphatic about this, reminding us that Satan and his minions commonly disguise themselves as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:13-15).

I don't mind giving the benefit of the doubt to a young pastor fresh out of seminary who might misstate something or need further instruction to eliminate some latent point of ignorance or clear out the cobwebs of confusion (cf. Acts 18:26).

But a self-styled "bishop"—notorious for his love of money, who teaches a false prosperity gospel, who freely shills for every aberration on TBN, who was ordained in a Sabellian denomination, who has been confronted repeatedly about his anti-trinitarianism, who refuses to renounce modalism, who declines to embrace any standard expression of Trinitarian conviction, and who (on top of all that) is unclear on practically every doctrine germane to the gospel—such a figure should not be warmly welcomed into evangelical circles and given the platform at an evangelical conference as if we're confident that he is a solid brother with good intentions.

Plus, despite your protestations above, both Galatians 1:8-9 and 2 John 7-11 teach us that it's not always the right thing to deal with doctrinal aberrations though "cordial dialogue." Certain theological miscreants need to be avoided rather than listened to (Romans 16:17). Some need to have their mouths stopped (Titus 1:11).

Furthermore, true elders and undershepherds of Christ's flock do often have a duty to declare truth through exhortation and rebuke, with all authority (Titus 2:15), rather than acting as if every contrary teaching is an opportunity for friendly dialogue and an open exchange of views. That's especially important in today's spiritual climate, where so many people in the church (including a few once-trusted leaders) ape the worldly conviction that diversity is inherently wonderful and strong convictions are inherently uncharitable.

And to whoever asked incredulously whether critics were fearful that Jakes might suddenly lead multitudes astray through the platform given him at the Elephant Room: what concerns me is the fact that he already has, and I think it's appalling that the guardians of evangelical cordiality and "civil discourse" seem utterly unconcerned about it.

Phil's signature


Cameron Shaffer said...

Good words Phil. Thanks

Eric said...

It seems odd to me that some people seem to think that if Jakes just has this platform he will be able to "define himself" clearly for all to see. Jakes has had years and years and opportunity after opportunity to make his position on the Trinity clear...and he has not. So now we should expect that the wizzards of the elephant room can somehow pry new clarity from his lips?

Tim said...

I'm not familiar with the "Elephant Room" or the parties involved there but I'm wondering if EVERY platform should be viewed as "The Church" and demand that we follow the old Landmark doctrine of "Pulpit Affiliation" to reject those who aren't just like us. Can this platform be viewed as a "Mars Hill" for the engagement it brings? Or, is Jakes too heretical for a Mars Hill platform?
I don't know enough about this to comment further but the dialogue is interesting food for thought.

Anonymous said...


The whole premise of the Elephant Room, according to James MacDonald who hosts it, is to bring together Christian leaders to discuss differences in how they do things.

So yes, I think Jakes should not be there. He doesn't fit the description, as Dan Phillips mentioned earlier, of either Christian or leader.

Anonymous said...

I'm wondering then Phil, according to your standard, are you saying there is no context in which, if Jakes would agree to it, you would sit with him and challenge what you see as heresy? If that's not the case, then can you describe the context in which you would communicate with him?

Paul Nevergall said...


First, Phil's post outlines biblical standards - not his own; and second, the post answers your question.

DJP said...

Terrific, Phil. Characteristically pellucid and on-target.

Anonymous said...

knew the biblical standard shot was coming. didn't see "refer to what I already said." Thanks anyway.

Phil Johnson said...


If he were willing, I'd talk to Jakes privately in any kind of neutral setting.

If his terms for meeting obliged me to grant him a platform to spin-doctor his teaching for the sake of convincing people under my pastoral care that his deviation from Trinitarianism is of no real importance I absolutely would not agree to meet with him.

To me the difference in those two scenarios is obvious. If anyone is confused by it, I invite you to ponder WHY the apostle John would suggest that anyone who gives a heretic a greeting becomes a participant in his evil deeds.

Hint: It wasn't because the apostle of love was suggesting we should be "unloving."

John said...

Couple of point:
- What do you think the odds are that anyone at (or in) the Elephant Room will actually demand TD Jakes to finally state his position with clarity?
- Suggestion: I'll loan Phil Johnson my law license for a day and he can go and cross-examine Jakes in this supposed open forum.
- Where do you draw the line? For example, I think it's pretty clear that if it's your church, you don't invite TD Jakes to speak. But what do you do if say James MacDonald decides to invite Phil to the Elephant Room. Should he go in the interest of getting the truth out there?

Rich Barcellos said...

Phil, I see you are not running for political office, eh? Good for you.

Brian said...

Walk in the Word's marketing of the Elephant Room months ago reeked of marketing. It is not getting any better.

Anonymous said...

If his terms for meeting obliged me to grant him a platform to spin-doctor his teaching for the sake of convincing people under my pastoral care that his deviation from Trinitarianism is of no real importance I absolutely would not agree to meet with him.

Thanks Phil. If this is the sense one gets coming away from ER, then I will whole heartedly agree with the assessments here. I guess I'm more confident this won't happen.

Jennifer McSparin said...

It's interesting to me that Jakes was invited by MacDonald, who seems to follow the Furtick/Noble/Young group these days. Furtick, in particular, has been moving towards the prosperity gospel in his sermons, blogs and tweets.

Young has Jakes as a speaker at one of his C3 conferences; Noble defends Jakes' beliefs; Furtick invites Jakes to his "Code Orange" revival; now MacDonald has invited Jakes to the Elephant Room.

Then you have the four leading their congregations in "spontaneous" baptisms, starting with Furtick in late July, then Young in August, then Noble and MacDonald on the same weekend in September.

The wives of MacDonald, Furtick, and Young also recently made a trip to Haiti together.

This group seems to play follow-the-leader, and having seen what I have out of the other three, I really have to wonder about MacDonald's judgment (to say the least).

John said...

Maybe the four of them (Young, Jakes, McDonald and Furtick) could work out a time share arrangement on Young's jet.

Adam said...

You need to see James MacDonald within the context that he has defined for himself. When you come across a web site url of the constructed as: www.[insertpastorsname].org, you've got to recognize that a root of celebrity (or pride) defines that individual.

For those who raise the "cyber-squatting" herring, consider John Piper's name url which redirects you to "Desiring God"...

Bill O'Neill said...

Mr. Jakes has a very visible vehicle with which to completely clear up any misconceptions about him or his ministry that may be floating about the ether.

Fortunately, for Jakes, given the efficacy of the ER and other group hug forums, he can keep his brand untainted by any criticism before his loyal followers.

Phil Johnson said...

Matt: "I guess I'm more confident this [compromise] won't happen."

I would have been as well, until after seeing the videos from last year's Elephant Room. Let's not forget that the issues of Perry Noble's "Highway to Hell" blasphemy and Steven Furtick's sheep-flogging pragmatism were settled with group hugs, an invitation for Furtick to occupy the pulpit at Harvest, and James MacDonald's recent attack on critics of Noble.

A similar acceptance of TD Jakes seems to be the goal here as well. MacDonald has ALREADY intimated that he doesn't see any insurmountable problem with Jakes's teaching. He doesn't buy the charge that it's modalism. He'll be moderating the dialogue. And Jakes certainly isn't going to admit to being a Sabellian.

Given the track record, I have a hard time envisioning any outcome other than "Isn't it wonderful that we all love Jesus?" We'll see.

Jerry Wragg said...

Why give J. MacDonald the "benefit of the doubt?" Let's suppose James MacDonald had indeed heard something personally from T.D. Jakes that "convinced" him of Jakes' orthodoxy. It is still unacceptable for anyone to publically declare as orthodox a long-time heretic who still refuses to clearly articulate a strong conviction of the doctrine he so notoriously repudiated for years! MacDonald simply has not carefully understood either his own views of the trinity or the implications of endorsing Jakes, even if owing to some private interaction. Were Jakes to actually turn from his rejection of orthodoxy in this area, it would mean that he has become regenerate, and would also result in a public renouncing of his previous views and clear commitment to, and articulation of, the biblical view.

It's becoming clear what is plaguing evangelicalism: There is an utter lack of biblical precision, clarity, and definitive conviction that is growing like a cancer from within. Popular, highly visible false teachers are called "brothers" by noted evangelebrities, and the sheep have little to no filter for discerning the difference. If a man's ministry is popular and passionately accepted as "the bomb" among today's ministry leaders, he should not (apparently) be seriously challenged as to his theological understanding or pastoral practice. After all, the sheer vast numbers of professing, well-interntioned believers that call him "effective" are proof enough that he's legit. It couldn't possibly be that people have "raised up teachers after their own desires," and then interpret the popularity as "God's hand."

Dog and Pony Show said...

One vote here for: "Don't even eat with such..."

bereansearch said...

Perhaps it is time, for someone who can properly handle such a venue, to provide an alternative to the "Elephant In The Room". I am in agreement that a self described bishop who is a prosperity gospel/word-faith/Muslims are the "sheep not of this fold" does not qualify for such a discussion among conservative evangelicals. Also, the silence of Jakes towards those who have questioned his theology of God is deafening. It's not like he has no platform to be heard. Perhaps he may be right for MacDonald and Driscoll. Maybe we could have a program like EIR with MacArthur and J. R. White?

DJP said...

Any votes for Pyros in Da House?

Coram Deo said...

Excellent post, Phil.

Nailed. It.

This is very reminiscent of the substance and style of your GraceLife Pulpit series on Galatians which is truly must-hear material.

IMHO you're most in your element dealing with polemical/apologetic issues. I recognize you have a pastor's heart; but you certainly have an apologist's mind.

As with your recent piece on Perry (ig)Noble, thanks again for shedding much needed Scriptural light on these ugly matters.

In Christ,

FX Turk said...

What teamPyro should do is take the day off for Elephant Room, buy the liveStream so we can view it live, and do MST3K-eque commentary for the whole day to whatever happens.

And we could stream our version live for free (but not be too severe to forbid donations).

HT: regier

FX Turk said...

BTW, I'm hopeful that Dever will get his chance to chat with all the participants.

There's no way that would go soft.

Andy Chance said...

I thought Driscoll shot wolves.

Rachael Starke said...

@Frank- Open mouthed at the awesomeness of the idea. Making mental note to make a special trip to Costco for lots of chips and dip the night before.

Anonymous said...

Yes, yes, yes, yes and YES! Thank you, Phil Johnson. Thank you, Dan Phillips. Thank you, Frank Turk.

There are some things worth fighting for.

Melissa said...

Thank you so much for writing this. I posted on James' site when this all started, asking why did Paul rebuke Peter for accomodating the Judiazers? Yet, today we would call them brothers, and say they just adhere to a different "method". The other thing I don't understand, is yes, modalism is a heresy, but so is the prosperity gospel.

Why are we no longer able to call a false teacher, a false teacher? Over the past couple of days I watched a couple of TBN clips showing Jakes. I was appalled. When I went to Harvest, they preached against this as heresy. But apparently a new leaf has been turned. A turning proved by actions not words.

Oh how I long for the days when we could just call things WRONG!

Eric O said...

Should Dever be criticized for participating with Jakes?

Mary Elizabeth Tyler said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...


"Oh how I long for the days when we could just call things WRONG!"

Big, serious ditto!

I'm sick and tired of Christians buying into the postmodern myth that we must be muzzled and hobbled. Enough is enough.

We need to take up the sword and drive the wolves and the goats from the sheepfold. We need to take our churches back.

donsands said...

"Some need to have their mouths stopped (Titus 1:11)"-Phil

Yes. And Jakes needs this big time. As do Philips, Craig, & Dean, the other Modalists, who seem to be greeted in the Body of Christ with open and arms. I have told everyone on my local Christian radio station about PC&D, and they just shrug, and say, "Oh, Don." What does that really mean.
"You are such divisive kind of guy, and didn't you listen to these guys sing this song 'Revelation'! This song gives me goosebumps!"

I imagine TDJ gives many goosebumps as well.

The Word of God isn't that imporatnt; as imporatnat as goosebumps.

Have a beautiful Lord's day in His truth and grace and Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

donsands said...

"Should Dever be criticized for participating with Jakes?"

No. Quite a good man of God is Mark Dever. Yet, he is just a man. Let us wait and see.

Julius Mickel said...

WHY won't people READ the purpose statement of the ELEPHANT room? (which clears up ALL ?'s concerning their intent)
AND why won't people read their bibles? What do the scriptures say about how we are to respond to heretics/false teachers (and yes specifically those who tweek who GOd is and who teach a heatlh/wealth gospel)?? It doesn't say 'buy them a cup of Joe and hear them out' Jesus told His disciples to BEWARE OF THE LEAVEN OF THE PHARISEES (hmm but their elect, why should they worry about be 'influenced' by bad teaching)...why did Paul consider the message of Hymenaeus and Philetus akin to gangrene (cancer in some translations)....and when pray tell should 1 Corinthians 5:11 "But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler—not even to eat with such a one."
may not fit the cuddly mr. rogers gospel of niceness but it sure is BIBLICAL.....if Jesus was there he'd FLIP the table!

Peter said...

Is doing public debates against heresies okay or are you even suggesting that you should flee from them in any public setting where they can teach.

Michael T. said...

When I heard Furtick was goung to be there I said, whatever. Maybe he can explain his "haters" videoto some real haters. When I heard Noble was going to be there, I thought, maybe somebody will layeth the smacketh down on him. But, when I heard TD " I dont even believe in the same God you do!" Jakes was going to be there, I said enoughs enough already! It's quite alright to have in house debates, but to have a cultist that denies essential Christian doctrine spout off his heresies or worse yet get soft ball questions to propogate his acceptance in the rest of the church is not only a stain on James MacDonalds cred, but an abomination to his church. I hear people saying TD Jakes' beliefs are questionable. With his kind you cannot beat around the bush. You cannot cut the bible to shreads the way he does, deny the true nature of our God and call yourself a believer. Unless this is going to be James MacDonald calling on Jakes to recant on his heresy, it's a big mistake. I thought the Elephant room was about discussing tough issues among believing Pastors. At this point they should just invite the Dali Lama.

ANiMaL (richard) said...

I would pay for that.

James S said...

Just another example of why Pyromaniacs warms my heart.

You da man, Phil. God, I love the truth.

Frank Turk - MST3K style riffing on the ER would be the ultimate.
Frank can be Tom Servo, Dan can be Crow and Phil would be the Joel/Mike in the middle. What an awesome idea.

Jhr said...

Thanks, Phil... Maybe John Ankerberg could invite Jakes on his TV program and do an expose...

leadsoldier said...

I don't see why Simon the Sorcerer was not invited to the Jerusalem Conference. After all, he believed in the Holy Spirit, and he would even have paid his own way. H e would have made the apostles and elders challenge their preconceived ideas, stimulated some fresh thinking about how to contextualize the gospel outside the narrow confines of Jerusalem, and his fee would have helped feed the widows and orphans.

Anonymous said...

I've never heard of "The Elephant Room" before either (although I have heard of and even listened to [once or twice] James MacDonald). I just clicked over to their web-site, and it looks like its a venue wherein pastors get together to discuss controversial issues. At this point, though, I am unclear who will be sitting opposite Jakes, besides MacDonald as the moderator. And I am also unclear about what the topic of discussion will be. Is it going to be on the doctrine of God and trinitarianism; or is it going to be on something else?

I am also unclear, Phil, what the problem is here. Is it that Jakes is being put on a platform that you think is reserved for orthodox pastors, and the fact the he truly is a heretic (which I agree with you on) poses the problem? If The Elephant Room represented a context where Jakes was going to be held accountable for his heresy, would that change things for you (Phil)?

It does bother me that Jakes, according to what you're saying, Phil, is going to be in a scenario that presupposes that he is a credible pastor. I guess I am just unaware of the antics that actually take place at The Elephant Room, and thus my curiosity here.

Anonymous said...

Is it comical or tragic that Driscoll chimes in to help Jakes define good theology? I honestly can't decide.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Saints and Sceptics said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
myinnuendo99 said...

I thought pastors where supposed to have godly men around them in their Church to hold them accountable to the word of God. Where are the men who should be keeping James MacDonald on the straight and narrow? are they duped by people like Futrick and T.D. Jakes also? I just shake my head and cannot understand how a pastor and whole church can allow this.

Robert Warren said...

"...and do MST3K-eque commentary for the whole day to whatever happens."

W00t! I want to be off from work that day. The possibilities boggle the comic mind.

Jay Budzilowski said...

@ Frank
I have always seen you Pyros as the MST3k of the blogosphere... Phil as Mike Nelson, Dan as Tom Servo..Frank as Crow...

Chris Nelson said...

False teachers should get NO public forum in orthodox circles according to the clear teaching of scripture. To allow them that is to participate in their vile doctrines. Not a particularly difficult issue to parse if you understand Moses, Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and Jude, but what do they know?

Charlene said...

I am so grateful for TeamPyro. Thank you, Phil, for this post. It seems that there is growing animosity towards anyone who would be precise with theology. Anyone who discerns (according to Biblical truth) is "angry" and "unloving". Or a "Nazi". Had to look up MST3K to find out what it was. After reading about it on Wikipedia, I'm down with that! "'What Is Love?' Doctrine Cop Remix" anyone?

Mark said...

Thanks, Phil. I appreciate your tackling this issue.

jozzyboy116 said...

MST3K??? You made my day, Frank! DO IT! Seriously. But, start with Furtick's "Haters" video... I see some good riffing in that!

By the way, good post, Phil!

Jennifer McSparin said...

In response to: "Should Dever be criticized for participating with Jakes?"

Dever was announced before Jakes, so it's possible he might not have known. Jack Graham is also one of the participants, and I think most would find him respected as well.

Furtick and Noble were both challenged during the last ER-Furtick can be seen here debating Matt Chandler, who took issue with Furtick beating the flock and only preaching to newcomers: http://vimeo.com/21931921

MacDonald also took Noble to task on his use of "Highway to Hell" to open an Easter service: http://vimeo.com/21929130

If the current lineup remains the same when the event goes live, I have no doubt that Dever will ask some pointed questions. :)

tsmucker said...

Reject a heretic after warning him once and then twice,have nothing more to do with him! http://bible.cc/titus/3-10.htm

Anonymous said...


I'd like to watch those videos you linked to, but they're marked private. Any suggestions?


Unknown said...

Jerry Wragg said:
"It's becoming clear what is plaguing evangelicalism: There is an utter lack of biblical precision, clarity, and definitive conviction that is growing like a cancer from within."

Good article, and good comment.

Just returned from a week in Utah, home of the LDS (aka Mormonism). This is the future of "evangelicalism" if we carry on in the path to which Jerry alludes:

Using Christian terminology without the Biblical meaning.

Go listen to an LDS praying in the name of Jesus, or look at how their apostles clearly state substitutionary atonement - more so than many of our confused "brethren". LDS sound more "Christian" than "evangelicals".

Yet, LDS gospel is not the Biblical gospel (salvation by works, God deprived of his eternality and holiness, continuing revelation and not Sola Scriptura, etc).

May the Lord save us from the approaching waterfall where "evangelicalism" is a "Christless Christianity".

CR said...

It was before I read this post, when I read Frank Turk's twitter on the Pyro blog, for some strange reason, I read Elephant Man 2. I said I didn't know Elephant Man came out with a sequel.

Good post.

Brian said...

I would like to see them invite James White to this event.

Michael Lawmaster said...

Excellent post Phil! Thanks.

donsands said...

"I said I didn't know Elephant Man came out with a sequel."

What a fine film that was, and is:


FX Turk said...

I will be pleased to be Crow.

Adam Rodriguez said...

I guess my question would be: where do you draw the line on heresy? Obviously things like the Trinity are no-brainers, but when does it become actual heresy like prosperity gospel? Would Arminianism be heresy? Amillennialism? Infant Baptism? Continuationism? (There are too many -isms here.)

FX Turk said...



Compare it with Apostasy and Blasphemy. These are not all the same thing.

chuck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian said...

Chuck, are you talking about Gordon MacDonald? I am not aware of this being the case with James, in fact I am almost sure it's not.


(Echoing what Todd Friel of Wretched said) They need to confront T.D. Jakes from the outset about his view on the Trinity, the perverted Word of Faith false gospel, and the fallacies of Oneness Pentecostalism (which are many), and according to CARM are as follows. Oneness Pentecostalism teaches:
1.Denies the doctrine of the Trinity.
2.Denies justification by faith alone by stating that baptism is also required for salvation.
3.Jesus is God the Father.
4.Jesus is the Holy Spirit.
5.The name of God is "Jesus."
6.Baptism is necessary for salvation.
7.Denies pre-existence of the Word as the Son. Teaches that the He existed as the Father.
8.Being born again means repentance, baptism, and speaking in tongues.
9.Baptism must be administered by an ordained Oneness minister to be valid.
10.Baptism must be administered with the phrase, "In the name of Jesus" instead of the phrase, "In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit," (Matt. 28:19).
11.Speaking in tongues is a necessary requirement to demonstrate that a person has been baptized in the Holy Spirit, and is, therefore, saved. It is claimed to be the initial sign of the infilling of the Holy Ghost.
12.Restitution of all things, though the devil and the angels will not be restored.
13.Women may be pastors.3
14.Only Oneness people will go to heaven.
(source: http://carm.org/religious-movements/oneness-pentecostal/what-does-oneness-pentecostal-teach)
(Also see: http://www.carm.org/td-jakes)
If when confronted on these issues, "the Bishop" refuses to renounce modalism, the word of faith heresy, and oneness pentecostalism, then James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll need to say to T.D. Jakes "You sir are an unrepentant heretic and we have to dismiss you now. Sorry we troubled you in coming here, but you need to leave now."
I seriously doubt this is going to happen however. Like one commenter said, Jakes has had many years to renounce his ways and has not. Now all of a sudden at the behest of MacDonald and Driscoll, he is going to recant? I think not. Unfortunately, I think this will only cause more confusion within the body of Christ and not to mention, give credibility to a false teacher. In my opinion, this is an overall act of futility.

Dave said...

I do not follow James MacDonald, however, while on a trip I heard him preach a very good message about repentance. What happened?

Donsands - thanks for the heads-up on PC&D - I noticed that this info has been on the web for years! I've contacted the folks at my local radio station. PC&D are members of the same cult that family members of mine have sold their souls to. It seems to me that we are giving them and their cult a false sense of security and audience for their message.

chuck said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...


According to the Harvest Bible Chapel website, James MacDonald's wife's name is Kathy, not Stacey or Sandy.

DJP said...

For my part, I would like to see them invite Phil Johnson to this event.

DJP said...

Also, in other news, I would be happy to be either Tom Servo or Crow; however, Servo could sing. So, there's that.

Tom Chantry said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
chris stiles said...

I'm surprised that more people haven't picked up on this comment from James Macdonald's blog post defending his decision to invite TD Jakes:

"I am also excited to hear him state his views on money, which may be closer to Scripture than the monasticism currently touring reformed world."



Anonymous said...


I picked up on it, Chris. Apparently Mr. MacDonald is unaware of Mr. Jakes activities in the area of bilking?

Rich Barcellos said...

Trotter at Ref 21 picked up on that, Chris E.


Anonymous said...

And, may I add that Carl Trueman has his finger precisely on the pulse of this issue.

MR said...

I am a little surprised Macdonald was persuaded by Furtick to even consider Jakes seeing as Macdonald holds to the complementarian position....Jakes has a woman as one of his associates!

I am truly looking forward to the Dever legdrop from the top rope. (forgive the redneck wwf expression)

Anonymous said...

I think it would be worthwhile to read Thabiti Anyabwile's blog regarding this issue. Helps provide further perspective on why this is such an important issue: http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2011/10/01/collateral-damage-in-the-invitation-of-t-d-jakes-to-the-elephant-room/

chris stiles said...

I'm guessing these are the sort of views that Macdonald considers "closer to Scripture than the monasticism currently touring reformed world.""


chuck said...

For all who have read my two posts I apolagize, I was in error.I was wrong about Harvest Church James McDonald,I had him confused with another James McDonald.I would delete the post but I don't know to do it. If someone would send me the directions I would be more than willing to delete them. ibczubu@hotmail.com

Tom Chantry said...


Perfectly understandable confusion - who would have guessed there were two guys in wide-reaching ministries with the same name?

At the bottom of your comments (and only yours) you should see a little trash can. Click it, and it will give you the option to delete your post.

Adam Rodriguez said...


Thanks, that makes a lot more sense to me.

Jim Pemberton said...

Then there was Saint Nicholas who reportedly clobbered Arius for his heresy.