Sticky wicket. The “watchdogs” have been complaining about this for a while. And on this one point, they may have something. I understand where Young is coming from, but I’m uncomfortable.

The watchdogs may, in this one case, have a point… Am I really saying that? I was uncomfortable with Jakes at the Summit a few years ago for this reason, and then he wasn’t as compelling a leadership speaker as I thought he was anyway.

I saw T.D. Jakes at this conference last year and he had some incredible leadership points.  As a volunteer at the conference also, I heard many of the pastors speak about how Jakes was amazing and really spoke to them about leadership.  Also, just from hearing him speak, I have no doubt that the man loves God passionately.  You put great leadership skills and a passion for God together and you make a great speaker for this conference.  I was very excited to see he was coming back again this year.

Much to do about nothing...........just another non-issue that the watchblogs stirred up........must of been a slow heresy day.

Having said that............I am not a TD Jakes OR Ed Young fan. But, they are my brothers in Christ.

Here we are two thousand years removed from the death of Christ. Orthodox Christianity is solidly trinitarian.

Have you ever wondered about the early Church, the apostles, etc.........how many of them were trinitarian? Let’s not forget that trinitarianism is a doctrine that developed over time. It was not part of the early Church confession of faith.This is not the only doctrine that can be viewed this way. (views of the atonement would be another among many)

Is Jakes wrong? Yes
Is he a Christian? Yes

Bruce

Todd,

I usually stay quiet on this site...I get enough heat on my own.  BUT...dude, I’ve got to speak out on this one. 

First of all let me say that Ed is a friend of mine...so my comments will be one sided.  He loves Jesus, loves the church, and loves people.  ONE of THE reasons that Fellowship Church has been so successful is because Ed learns from all types of people--EVEN the ones who do not think just like him!

Somewhere along the way I think Christians develop a sort of elite view as to what they believe...and the danger in that is they feel that if someone doesn’t believe EXACTLY like they believe--then nothing can be learned.  I would say that if you hang out with people who believe exactly like you believe on every issue then you are a pretty shallow human being. 

I do believe in the trinity with all my heart.  In fact, if people will do their flippin’ research they will see that Fellowship did a series on the Trinity several years ago entitled “Tri-God.” (So much for them being shallow!) It was an incredible series where Ed unpacked one of the most difficult issues in the church to explain. 

If TD doesn’t believe in the trinity then that is something I trust he and the Lord will work out.  I believe he is a godly man...listens to God...and that God can tell Him what he does and does not need to believe.  HOWEVER, to say that someone can’t learn from TD Jakes because he has a view that is different than theirs--that is arrogance in its purest form. 

I am trying to expand my own circles--heck...I’ve even entered an e-mail dialogue with a few guys from the emerging church!!!  (And that is stretching me!)

Sorry about the novel...just wanted to put my two cents in--especially since I am heading that way tomorrow!!!  People can criticize all they want--but the conference is going to freakin’ rock!!!

I agree that it’s unfortunate when the Body of Christ attacks itself but this is a different issue than most church, denomination or theological squabbles.  This is a fundamental of the faith.  If we’re going to use the analogy of a body attacking itself, I would consider this an area of the immune system kicking into action.

The Trinity is not something that we can agree to disagree on.  The Trinity is (or at least should be) the foundation for the very basics of what we believe about God - eternally Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I’m not arguing that Jakes should or shouldn’t speak at the conference; I haven’t thought through that enough.  But to dismiss critics so easily for being “divisive” or “Pharisees” about this issue misses the entire point.  There are some things that we can agree to disagree on.  Absolutely.  The Trinity is not one of them.  There are some kinds of innovation that don’t even belong at an Innovative Church Conference.  Those criticising Young are simply stating that this kind theological innovation is inconsistent with Christian doctrine.

The old saying is “In essentials, unity.  In non-essentials, liberty.  In all things, charity.” The Trinity is an essential.  We must be united in standing for truth.  That doesn’t mean that we act uncharitably toward Jakes and others who hold the heretical view of the Trinity but it does mean that we draw a line as to what legitimate Christian doctrine is.

Grace and peace,
Rusty

Rusty,

I seriously doubt anyone in this discussion is going to minimize the importance of the trinity. But, the doctrine of the trinity was not a part of the faith once delivered to the saints. The early Church had little or no understanding of the trinity. First century Christians were primarily Jews and as such monotheistic.

Too many people view doctrine in a vacuum. They forget that most doctrines that we say are essential were developed over long periods of time.

Since many Evangelicals have a disdain for Church history they are forced to continually re-invent the wheel. They reject tradition and the witness of the historic Church, thus they have only their own current interpretation to stand on (instead of that good three legged stool)

The historic Church condemned modalism as heresy. I accept their witness. I also affirm that the doctrine of the trinity is the hardest of all doctrines to understand.

TD Jakes comes from a Oneness Pentecostal background. Three distinctives stand out. Modalism,Baptism for the remission of sins, and speaking in tongues as evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. As a Baptist (well I am kinda one anyway) I reject all three of these and consider them doctrinal error. But, the witness of the Church is on Jakes side when it comes to baptism. Most Churches hold to some form of baptism for the remission of sins. Baptists are definitely the minority on the baptism issue. Should we not then be called heretics?

The history of the Church is ugly and filled with contradiction. We cherry pick what we want from history and we reject what doesn’t fit our systematic theology.

Can one be a heretic and still be a Christian? How much error is allowed until one is no longer a Christian?  (or the Baptist two step they were never saved anyway!) Is preaching a gospel of works heresy? Yes. Then the Apostle Peter was a heretic for preaching , and falling in with those who said you had to be circumcised to be saved. Keep in mind, depending on dating, Peter is rebuked by Paul over this some 20 years after the death of Christ. This would make Peter a mature Christian yet he fell into error.

Bruce

Leonard is right that the Potter’s House statement is not straightforward or dogmatically oneness.

From The Potter’s House Belief Statement:
God--There is one God, Creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three Manifestations: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The word “manifestations” is tricky. It could be interpreted as modalism or it could be interpreted within the orthodox tradition of “persons.”

From the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) doctrinal views:
In distinction to the doctrine of the Trinity, the UPCI holds to a oneness view of God. It views the Trinitarian concept of God, that of God eternally existing as three distinctive persons, as inadequate and a departure from the consistent and emphatic biblical revelation of God being one.

While fully God, Jesus was also fully man, possessing a full and true humanity. He was both God and man. Moreover, the Holy Spirit is God with us and in us. Thus God is manifested as Father in creation and as the Father of the Son, in the Son for our redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in our regeneration.

The UPCI is the largest oneness denomination is the US. They clearly hold a theological opinion that seperates them from the historic orthodox stream. The Potter’s House does not make this strong of a statement on their webpage. He does the term “manifestation,” which is used by the UPCI.

Derek

Obviously Jerry is being sarcastic… right?  But there is a difference between interacting, developing relationships, etc.  and promoting, sharing a pulpit, etc.  As I read your comments, it seems that there is no difference between interacting with people and embracing them fully.  To me there is a difference.  I can develop a relationship with someone without embracing their behavior or beliefs.  I have to do that.  We have to hold to truth as we reach out to others.

I personally would not bring Jakes in to speak at my church.  There is a difference between him and say Jerry Jones or Hulk Hogan.  A person like Hogan is not a Christian spiritual authority at all.  So it is easy to distinguish their role.  Jakes is a different story.

It is odd for me to read that his history is oneness but his present isn’t.  Unless he has made a statement otherwise, his history is not history at all.

On the other side of the coin… why publically call Ed out?  Who does that really benefit?  If you have a problem with him go to him not the newspaper.  A friend of mine was on NPR once and being asked about Osteen.  I admire my friend because while he disagrees with 90-99% of Joel’s teachings he would not allow the NPR host to get him to criticize Osteen.  Simply because as far as he knows Joel is a believer.

“On the other side of the coin… why publically call Ed out?”

This is a great question. Why aren’t we talking about the guy calling Ed out instead of TD Jakes? Why does he get a free pass when neglecting Biblical directions for confrontation, but Jakes doesn’t is called on the carpet?

I haven’t read much about TD Jakes’ doctrine regarding the trinity, but of the summaries I’ve read I don’t understand the problem.  God is one.  God is three.  Paradoxes, by their very nature, are difficult to explain, and we’re going to call this guy a heretic (or heathen!) because his focus of 3 vs. 1 is a little off of what we deem right?  I really don’t believe Scripture speaks clearly enough on the trinity for us to make the proper emphasis an essential. 

Jesus was both God and man, and died for sin.  None of the critiques of Jakes I have read say he disagrees with that statement.

Jim,

you are very much off the mark with your comment about lack of concern over doctrine. No one has suggested doctrine is not important. The question is: is salvation by grace or by correct doctrine? Has the Christian Church always believed Trinitarian doctrine? No.

Doctrine develops over time. It is man’s way of attempting to explain and understand God. I suspect we have many doctrines that we now consider orthodox that the first century Church would have considered strange or unheard of.

Your JW comment is the mixing of apples and oranges.Having said that, not ALL JW doctrine is false. Most JW’s are far more orthodox when it comes to the eternal Kingdom than many “I’m going to heaven, and gonna sit on a cloud and play a harp” Evangelicals. Yes, they are wrong on the essentials...........the work and nature of Jesus, but they are not wrong on everything

I live your command Craig.