Elephant Fallout - ER Saga (Part 9)

My head has been spinning over the last two years at the shocking decisions made by so many people I respect. Who would have ever thought that John Piper would invite Rick Warren to Desiring God, or that The Gospel Coalition would say almost nothing publicly about their member Mark Driscoll's inexcusable behavior, or that James MacDonald would put his stamp of approval on the ministry of TD Jakes. Am I in the matrix? Has modern evagelicalism built a portal into an alternate reality? Have the real James MacDonald and John Piper been abducted by aliens and are currently being impersonated by shape shifting imposters? My friends still laugh at these theories but not too much anymore.

What is going on? I don't know the answer to that, but in the midst of all of this mayhem I have become greatly encouraged by the number of godly men in this country who have been galvanized to action and enlisted in the truth war. Perhaps Rob Bell fully removing his sheep suit was the catalyst for all this combativeness and I finally have something to thank him for. Whatever it is, the growing clamor of zeal by men who desire to earnestly contend for the "Once for all delivered faith", and oppose all other "gospels" is probably the most exciting development in the last twelve months.

One great example of this is Pastor Arvid Svendsen (sounds very Scandinavian) who has withdrawn his mega-church from James MacDonald's Harvest network and given a lengthy public statement as to why. Thank God for men like Arvid, may God bless his congregation for the stand he has taken, may godly men rally around him, and may his stand be an integral part of the much needed correction needed to good preachers who start to go maverick. Read on and be greatly encouraged . . .

March 7, 2012

An Important Message from the Elder Board of Harvest Bible Chapel New Lenox:
Our church began on January 1, 2003 as "Cornerstone Church" with the purpose to glorify God by proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ to our community. On October 2, 2005, we joined with Harvest Bible Fellowship (HBF) and became Harvest Bible Chapel New Lenox (HBCNL). We were excited to be HBF's first "transition church".  

By God's grace, we have enjoyed many good times of fellowship and growth since our partnership with HBF. God has worked in our midst as we have determined to preach the Word of God, to call men and women to faith and repentance by the enablement of the Holy Spirit, and to trust God to do His work of drawing them to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ by His grace and for His glory.

Decision to Disassociate with Harvest Bible Chapel Fellowship
As the Elder Board of HBCNL, we now come to a significant moment of change in regards to our affiliation with HBF. Over the past year and a half the elders of HBCNL have sensed an increasing shift away from the convictions and philosophy of ministry that were in place when we joined HBF in October, 2005. In light of these concerns, we are disassociating from Harvest Bible Fellowship, effective March 31, 2012.  We will then assume our previous name (held from January 1, 2003 to October 2, 2005), "Cornerstone Church", and continue to serve the Lord together as an independent church.    

Harvest Bible Chapel Ministry new distinctives that we oppose:
In order to be clear, greater detail concerning our differences with Harvest Bible Fellowship is necessary. Though we are not accusing Harvest Bible Fellowship or Pastor James MacDonald of abandoning the faith, we are convinced that they have drifted into error in a number of key ministry areas. That drift can be evidenced by at least three major changes in their convictions and philosophy of ministry:

1.  A Growing Personality/Celebrity Pastor Centered Ministry
The Elder Board of HBCNL is troubled by HBF's commitment to the establishment of "multi-sites", also called "video campuses", in Chicagoland with Pastor MacDonald projected weekly on the video screen as the lead preacher. Multi-sites minimize the gifting of the Holy Spirit for vocational pastor/teachers to exercise "live" teaching and preaching, personally shepherding the flock, and directly practicing spiritual oversight. The multi-site model is foreign to the biblical model of ministry in the New Testament, as pastors and elders are told by Peter to "…shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight…" (I Peter 5:2a). Our observations of HBF indicate that a corporate mentality is in place that seeks to promote Pastor MacDonald in a way we cannot support.

2.  Pastor MacDonald's associations with "pastors" who hold to errant theologies
We do not oppose pastors having friendships with those who are not genuinely regenerate, as long as the goal is be a strong voice of the Gospel to the unregenerate minister. However, we are deeply concerned that HBF has been disrupted by associations and influences of men who hold to errant theologies and ministry distinctives.

A number of those associations include "pastors" given over to a hybrid prosperity/empowerment/love-over-doctrinal-precision posture. The resultant troubling actions, decisions, and statements from Pastor MacDonald demonstrate the negative impact of those associations. For example, Pastor MacDonald allowing prosperity teacher Steven Furtick to preach at HBC Rolling Meadows in August of 2011 is something that would not have happened five years ago at Harvest. Another example of influence was Pastor MacDonald's statement, "I am also excited to hear him (T.D. Jakes) state his views on money, which may be closer to Scripture than the monasticism currently touring reformed world". T. D. Jakes is an empowerment/prosperity gospel preacher. Associations like these have brought about harmful influence. Further, despite Pastor MacDonald's claims to the contrary, the large majority of the public's perception of associations with errant pastors is that there is endorsement in belief and mission.   

3.  Lack of Discernment in the Elephant Room Discussions
It was learned in the Fall of 2011 that the January 25, 2012, "Elephant Room 2" (ER2) conference would host T.D. Jakes as one of the seven pastors invited to form a discussion panel. The conference was intended to address difficult ministry topics with the seven pastor panel. The announcement of T.D. Jakes' appearance at ER2 was publicly criticized by a number of godly pastors and evangelical leaders. The elder board of HBCNL was also unanimous in our strong disagreement with the Jakes ER2 invitation. As referenced above, Jakes is clearly associated with many TV stations and ministries that are steeped in the false teaching of the Prosperity Gospel/Word Faith Movement. That reality in itself made the ER2 invitation alarming.

Equally alarming is the fact that Jakes is ordained in the Oneness Pentecostal Church, which denies the Trinity. Rather than believing in the biblically correct view of God as one God eternally existing as three "persons", the Oneness Pentecostal church holds to the errant view that God is one God existing as three "manifestations". The Oneness Pentecostal view denies the biblical view of the Trinity, denies the co-eternality, co-existence, and co-equality of the Son and the Holy Spirit with God the Father, and instead claims that one God shows up in history in three different "manifestations". 

When given the opportunity, the orthodox pastor must confront unbiblical teachings and doctrines:

"I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." (2 Timothy 4:1-4). 

A large segment of the "evangelical church" has drifted away from strong adherence to biblical doctrines, sadly denigrating the precise and clear explanation of those doctrines. The current thinking among many preachers is that doctrinal precision should be laid aside, and love should be the priority in the church of Jesus Christ so that unity would be attained. The opposite is true. A high regard for biblical truth and the guarding of doctrinal precision is the basis of unity, as the Lord Jesus Christ prayed, "…sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth…" (John 17:17). The truth of the Scriptures clearly defined is the highest expression of love for the listener. Strict adherence to Biblical truth and doctrine, not doctrinal leniency, brings about the unity for which the Lord prayed.   

Both Pastor Driscoll and Pastor MacDonald failed to address Jakes' prosperity gospel teaching at ER2. In fact, Jakes' prosperity gospel teaching was not publicly questioned or addressed at all. The reason for ignoring that entire area of false teaching at the ER2 is unknown, since we were told that we would be hearing about Jakes' views on the subject.

During the ER2 session with Pastor MacDonald and Pastor Driscoll, Jakes stated that he was not comfortable with the orthodox term "persons" or the modalistic term "manifestations". Specifically, Jakes stated, "My doctrinal statement is no different from yours except the word… 'manifest' instead of 'persons', which you describe as 'modalist', but I describe it as 'Pauline'."

Jakes then proceeded to make a case for the validity of the term "manifestations" to describe the Godhead based on I Timothy 3:16. However, the phrase Jakes referred to, "He was manifested in the flesh" found in I Timothy 3:16 is not referring to the essence of the Triune Godhead, but rather explains the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. It was deeply troubling that none of the other six pastors on the ER2 panel challenged Jakes' incorrect interpretation of I Timothy 3:16.  

Jakes' view on the Trinity, is not only deficient, it is outside the realm of orthodoxy, and can only be labeled as heresy.  Jakes urged that we not be too caught in those issues which were surrounded in mystery. Yet we read in Scripture that we must "…contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints..." (Jude 3).

Though we are called to speak to the lost, the church is warned to never welcome the false teacher into any gathering so that his words are given any type of legitimacy:

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds."  (2 John 10,11)

The Bible is clear about the stance one should take towards false teachers. T.D. Jakes' stated position on the Godhead is not an orthodox view of the Trinity. Jakes attempted to defend his position of the Trinity using language that is unique to the modalist who denies the Trinity. Unlike T.D. Jakes, no Trinitarian is uncomfortable with the word "persons" to describe the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the one God of the Bible.

Ultimately, Jakes' position on the Trinity is not the issue. Rather, the problem is HBF and Pastor MacDonald's not correcting or rebuking the false teaching presented in ER2. Pastor MacDonald's doctrinal tolerance and leniency before, during, and after the ER2 is at the heart of our departure from HBF. Pastor MacDonald's subsequent defenses of the ER2 on his website and on Moody Radio lead us to conclude that this change in direction established is part of the future ministry of HBF. Grievously, doctrinal leniency and disregard for proper theological examination from the pastors present marked the event.

We have addressed our concerns with the leadership of HBF
We addressed our concerns with Kent Shaw and Bill Molinari on two separate occasions, and also had additional conversations. We expressed to them our deep disappointment with ER2. We repeatedly expressed the clear violation of Scripture that was taking place by giving T.D. Jakes a platform to espouse his errant theology concerning the Trinity and the false gospel and prosperity and empowerment that marks his ministry. During all meetings, both Kent Shaw and Bill Molinari were gracious and brotherly.  Although the desire to work out our difficulties with HBF was present, it became clear that we could not continue to partner with HBF as directed by Pastor MacDonald.   

What is our future direction?
In light of the decision to withdraw from Harvest Bible Fellowship, what is our direction for the future? 

1. Independent Church
Our conviction is that we remain independent, with no denominational affiliation at this point. That decision does not mean that we will never form any association with a fellowship of churches in the future, but at this time, we will remain an independent church.

2. A "new" name
Our new name will be "Cornerstone Church", our original name when we began the ministry in 2003. The belief and mission of Cornerstone Church will be given over to the authority of the inspired Word of God, the grace of our Lord, and the n We are deeply committed to declaring the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  we will through the ministry of the word, prayer, and the work of the Holy Spirit, we will inform the community that we have changed our name, and will continue to meet in the same place, continuing to seek to obediently minister the word and reach out to the lost for the sake of the glory of Christ.

A new constitution
Legally, we must craft a new constitution, and make necessary legal requirements for the name change. Most of that work has been accomplished, our goal is to have all our necessary obligations completed by March 31, 2012. However, we are not dissolving as a church, we are simply dropping our affiliation. Transition to Cornerstone Church will take place during March 2012.

Please pray for our church as we continue to minister, and that God will be glorified in all that we do and say. Pray also for Pastor James MacDonald and HBF, that they would be attentive to the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

Sincerely in Christ,

Pastor Arvid Svendsen
arvid@harvestnewlenox.org

Elder Board: Carl Pignotti, Don Howley, Steve Long, Dean Porter, Jim Schwab, Rex Stouffer

Go Back To Part 8
Go Back To Part 1

Homosexuals Need To Stop Imposing Their Values On Kirk Cameron (Part 2)

It is simply amazing the powderkeg of hostility that continually spews forth from homosexual activists and political correctness police. Kirk Cameron is invited on to a Piers Morgan's talk show to talk about his new movie and gets asked for his view on gay marriage. Kirk, a Bible believing Christian, then proceeded to respond with an answer entirely consistent with a biblical worldview. Wow!!!! How surprising!!!! Earth to Piers Morgan - if you don't like the answer then don't ask the question. Is it really that complicated?

Sound thinking coupled with biblical convictions always arouses opposition but even Kirk was surprised at the vitriol poured forth on him. The homosexual community may well be one of the most hate filled agenda laden segments of the general population. Kirk Cameron is verifiable proof that the popular adage "it's not what you say, it's how you say it" is totally bogus. The fact is that a lot of these people simply hate Kirk for what he said - because he couldn't have said it any nicer or more politely.

I appreciate the response Kirk made on Facebook recently, not only because I didn't think he knew how to post something on Facebook, but more importantly because it is such an excellent response to a society that is in a free fall of perversion and depravity. Here is what Kirk Cameron said in response:

I recently was asked to join Piers Morgan on CNN for an interview about my new film “Monumental.” During that discussion, I was asked to express my views about homosexuality, gay marriage, and abortion. While that was not the agreed-upon purpose of the interview, I was pleased to answer Piers’ questions as honestly as I could.

In some people’s eyes, my responses were not sufficiently "loving" toward those in the gay community. I can only say that it is my life's mission to love all people, and that I expressed the same views that are expressed clearly and emphatically throughout the Judeo-Christian scriptures. As a Bible believing Christian, I could not have answered any other way.

I’ve been encouraged by the support of many friends (including gay friends, incidentally) in the wake of condemnation by some political advocacy groups. In the case of one of my gay friends, we regularly talk and have healthy and respectful debate. We learn from each other, and serve others alongside one another. I thank God for all of my friends...even when they hold very different views on issues of faith and morality. I do not, however, believe that the right way to advance our views is to resort to name-calling and personal attacks, as some have done to me.

I also believe that freedom of speech and freedom of religion go hand-in-hand in America. I should be able to express moral views on social issues--especially those that have been the underpinning of Western civilization for 2,000 years--without being slandered, accused of hate speech, and told from those who preach "tolerance" that I need to either bend my beliefs to their moral standards or be silent when I’m in the public square.

I hope more than a few people could see the large volume of secularist morality being imposed on me. In any society that is governed by the rule of law, some form of morality is always imposed. It's inescapable. But it is also a complicated subject, and that is why I believe we need to learn how to debate these things with greater love and respect.

To the thousands of you who have written me letters of encouragement... thank you! And to those who would like know how to further your support, please gather your friends and family, and join me as I seek to show you our true “National Treasure,” at the live, nationwide viewing of “Monumental” on Tuesday, March 27th (www.MonumentalMovie.com).

Thanks for showing so many of us what real manhood looks like Kirk! And readers, please pray for Kirk and his family for godly wisdom, enabling grace, and a hardened biblical resolve to continue standing for the truth.



Go Back To Part 1

Homosexuals Need To Stop Imposing Their Values On Kirk Cameron (Part 1)

"All he's [Kirk Cameron] taken from his religion is outdated bigotry and hatred for those who are different" (heterophobe Perez Hilton).

I am really getting sick and tired of all the hatred and bigotry that continually spews forth from the homosexual community. In an age when the proponents of the gay agenda continually cry out for tolerance and acceptance for their different beliefs, it is clear that they forgot to mention that they also get to live by different rules. Kirk Cameron gets invited onto a TV show to talk about his latest movie. He then gets sideswiped because Piers Morgan (the host) is fixated with everybody's view on homosexuality (exactly how many opinions does Piers actually need?), and therefore asks Kirks "opinion". What would you expect if YOU asked for somebody else's opinion? An opinion perhaps?



Well, in the narrow minded and highly bigoted world of the gay community, asking for an opinion is more about a heterophobic police investigation than a request for an opinion. When Piers Morgan is asking for an opinion about homosexuality, Kirk Cameron needs to realize that this question is actually the supreme litmus test for all matters of human decency. But Kirk didn't get it. For some inexplicable reason he thought he should give an opinion since he was asked for one. Not only that, Kirk thought it would be best to give an informed opinion based upon biblical truth and historical evidence. But the problem with Kirk's opinion is that it is not the opinion sanctioned by the gay guardians of public decency. And I am still trying to figure out Piers Morgan's mathematical equation:

Asking Kirk Cameron for an opinion + Kirk Cameron giving his opinion = Kirk Cameron hates all homosexuals



Did anyone just hear what Piers Morgan said? Rewind that video to the 2:00 mark and listen again.

I have total respect for Kirk Cameron's right to have any beliefs that he wants. I've got no problem with that. I just don't think you can sit there with a straight face and say "I am a Christian, God fearing, all round good person but, by the way, I hate these people who were born the way they were". (Piers Morgan)

Piers, if you had respect for Kirk Cameron then you would not slander him by putting your own words in his mouth. You are a pathetic excuse for a man and you need to apologize to Kirk for all your hate speech and imposing your values on him.

What sets homosexuality apart from most other biblical sins is not that it's the sin God hates the most. It is set apart because the homosexual community is the only group that is hell bent on dealing with their pet sin by redefining it as righteousness. You don't hear liars saying that lying is good. You don't hear adulterers saying that they are doing the right thing by their wife. But you do hear homosexuals on a regular basis trying to deal with their sin by pretending that it's not a sin. And this is why Kirk is the only person here acting with any real concern and love for the homosexual community by telling them the truth.

Though they know God's decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. (Romans 1:32)

Thank you Kirk for standing up for minorities like myself who live under the continual oppression of homosexual bigotry. Thank you Kirk for loving the truth more than your popularity. Thank you Kirk for loving your homosexual friends enough to tell them the truth. Thank you Kirk for caring more about sinners in need of a Savior than bowing to the god of political correctness. Thank you Kirk for all the times you have shared with homosexuals about the forgiveness found in Jesus Christ. I award you a double platinum man-card!

Go On To Part 2

Voddie Baucham And Ethnic Gnosticism - ER Saga (Part 8)

This jaw dropping interview took place after the Elephant Room conference where James MacDonald interviews three African American pastors. And the reason for people who criticize TD Jakes is because of his heretical teaching? No!!! It would appear that Jakes' skin color gives him diplomatic immunity from theological scrutiny . . .



It is beyond me why James MacDonald would post this video. Amidst the true points made here there is a lot to be disturbed about. If James MacDonald really wants to help the African American community then a good place to start would be to stop affirming those who plunder this very community with their outrageously heretical prosperity teaching. How about sitting down and discussing the gospel they preach rather than the color of their skin. Is it just possible that the content of TD Jakes' teaching could have anything to do with those Christian leaders who are critical of him? It would seem that another elephant just entered the room.

I cannot think of a better combination than the combined apologetic superpowers of Dr. Voddie Baucham and Dr. James White to discuss this issue. This discussion is gold - please check it out!



Go On To Part 9
Go Back To Part 7
Go Back To Part 1

The Voddie In The Room - ER Saga (Part 7)

Most readers would be aware of my fondness for the teaching/apologetics ministry of Voddie Baucham. It was the reason we invited him to come and minister at our Reformation Resurrection conference in Denmark last year. Voddie is a breath of fresh air on the evangelical landscape not only because of his theological expertise and apologetic ability to defend the Christian worldview, but also because of his combativeness against false worldviews and willingness call an elephant "an elephant". Amidst the fog and mystery of the behind the scenes machinations at work in preparation for James MacDonald's "Elephant in the Room" conference, Voddie wrote this article of wonderful clarity and frankness over what really went on and his connection to the whole process. If you have not already read this please do:

The Elephant in the Room by Voddie Baucham (January 30, 2012)

This past week a firestorm erupted over the recent “Elephant Room 2.” The controversy centers around the decision to invite Bishop T.D. Jakes to participate in the event. The central questions in the debate are 1) whether or not Bishop Jakes holds to the historic, orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, 2) whether it was appropriate to invite (and feature) him without first having clarified his position on this cardinal doctrine, and 3) whether he cleared up the matter.

I was scheduled to speak at Harvest Bible Chapel on the weekend following ER2 which raised significant questions about my stance on the matter. While I do not consider it my responsibility to comment on every controversy, I do recognize my duty to clarify matters with which I am involved directly, and/or those that impact the congregation I am called to shepherd. Hence, my explanation now.

My Invitation to ER2

In October of 2011, I was invited to participate in The Elephant Room 2. The invitation followed Mark Dever’s decision to pull out. James MacDonald called me and asked me to take his place. He also informed me of the controversy at that time surrounding the invitation to Jakes and Dever’s decision to pull out, and that Crawford Loritts had agreed to fill in. I knew James MacDonald only indirectly, and I had only recently heard of the Elephant Room.

Initially, it sounded like a very good idea to “pin Jakes down” on the Trinity. My area of emphasis in my theological training is Evangelism/Apologetics. Moreover, I addressed Jakes’s modalism in my first book in 2004, so I am well aware of the issues in question, and believed I could make a contribution. Also, to my delight, James indicated that Jakes had abandoned Oneness Pentecostalism, rejected Modalism, and, he believed, Jakes would make that clear at ER2.

I called my fellow elders to make them aware of the invitation (we usually meet monthly to review and consider invitations, but this was an urgent matter, and MacDonald had asked for a decision by the next day). We agreed that I should 1) find out more about the Elephant Room (specifically, was this an apologetics forum, or a forum that would assume Jakes’s orthodoxy), and 2) find out why Dever had backed out.

After investigating the matter, I decided to decline the invitation. My decision was based on four major areas of concern (Note: I voiced these four concerns to James MacDonald during our phone conversation the next day):

1. T.D. Jakes has a history of holding to, teaching, and associating with modalism, and ER2 was a forum wherein he would be assumed to be a “brother”.

I was already on record concerning Bishop Jakes’s modalism (see: The Ever Loving Truth, LifeWay, 2004), and I have kept up with the matter. Jakes had never repudiated Oneness Pentecostalism. Nor had he come out with an unambiguous, credal/confessional statement on the doctrine of the Trinity. There was absolutely no basis for me to assume that Jakes was suddenly orthodox, and therefore, no basis for me to welcome him as a brother.

2. The “Word of Faith” gospel he preaches is heterodox and harmful.

Even if Jakes had come out with a statement on the doctrine of the Trinity, it would not have done anything to change the fact that he preaches “another gospel.” (Gal 1:8–9) Having studied the “Word of Faith” movement, and seen the devastation it leaves in its wake, I was disinclined to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the man who has been this country’s most popular purveyor of this heresy in the past two decades (Note: James MacDonald and Mark Driscoll had both preached against the Word of Faith movement and called it heresy, so I did not believe I was informing James of anything he did not know already).

3. Jakes’s influence in the Dallas Metroplex has been negative, at best.

My wife is from Dallas, and my in-laws still live there (her parents and five siblings). I have preached in Dallas on many occasions, and at numerous churches, and have many acquaintances in the city. I know firsthand what kind of influence T.D. Jakes has had on the evangelical community, and broader Christian witness there. Suffice to say that he has not brought greater gospel clarity and fidelity. He has, however, brought a charismatic, theatrical, excessive, “Word of Faith” flavor to the city that permeates many churches (especially black churches).

4. Bishop Jakes is an example of the worst the black church has to offer.

One of the goals of ER2 was to address the issue of “racial” unity. Thus, Bishop Jakes was there (at least in part) as a representative of the “black church.” In light of the aforementioned issues, I was disinclined to participate in such an event. You see, Jakes was an invited guest; an invited ‘black’ guest. If he were mistreated, he had the race card; if he was accepted, he had entree into a new audience. It was a win-win for Jakes, and a lose-lose for evangelicalism. Obviously, he was not going to spout unadulterated modalism. Nor was he going to repudiate his roots (remember, this is his “heritage,” both ethnically and theologically). He had a perfect opportunity to find a middle ground and show “humility” in an environment that would be portrayed as “hostile” even though hostility was forbidden in light of the unwritten rules surrounding his blackness. Thus, his opponents had to choose between outright defeat and pyrrhic victory.

Moreover, I rejected the invitation because I did not want to give even the appearance of tokenism. The participants in the Elephant Room (and ER2), though they disagree methodologically on how we “get there,” are all virtually identical in their general profile. They are all successful mega-church pastors who have leveraged innovative and/or controversial methodologies to grow their churches, media empires, and/or pare-church ministries. I, on the other hand, am a pastor serving at a church with less than five hundred members; I’m not on television or radio; and my books aren’t best sellers. I don’t fit the profile! Whether MacDonald meant to or not, he was painting a picture of tokenism. If he meant it, I didn’t want to be used, and if he didn’t mean it, I didn’t want to be the source of misunderstanding.
While Pastor MacDonald said he “respected” my decision, he made it clear that he did not agree with me. We agreed to disagree and he moved on. At this time, I made two important decisions. First, I decided not to get involved in the public furor over ER2. I had spoken my piece to James, and saw no advantage in getting involved any further. There were others who were making many of the same points, and I did not want to pile on (James White, Phil Johnson, Thabiti Anyabwile, Anthony Carter, and others were pressing the issue, and bringing the pertinent points to light). I do not regret this decision. My second decision, however, is another story altogether. My second decision was to move forward with the scheduled Men’s Conference. That was unwise.

The Men’s Conference

I was naive to think that there would be no fallout if I decided to go forward with the Men’s Conference. The Men’s Conference was scheduled to take place two days after ER2. Once my worst fears were realized at ER2 (i.e., Jakes equivocated on modalism, was not even challenged on WOF gospel, etc. see here for a detailed analysis), there was no way for me to 1) keep silent on this growing controversy, and 2) attend the Men’s Conference, without giving tacit approval to ER2. The decision to go public was inevitable. The only question was how.

I have a regular practice of posting notices of upcoming events in my monthly newsletter, and on my Facebook fan page. These have been invaluable tools that keep people apprised of when I’m coming to their area (or the area of friends and family whom they’d like to invite to one of our events), how they can pray for me, and what kind of doors the Lord is opening for the ministry.

As per my practice, I posted a link to the Men’s Conference and asked, “Any fan page members planning to attend...” As you can imagine, there were more than a few questions about my position on ER2, my relationship with James MacDonald and Harvest Bible Chapel, and a whole host of other things. I answered those questions as honestly as I could. I made it clear that I opposed the decision to invite Bishop Jakes; pointed out what I saw as his masterful ‘dodge’ on the trinitarian question (and subsequent affirmation of modalist language), and gave a brief explanation of my reasoning for keeping this prior commitment (see here for a recap).

This did not go over well with James MacDonald. Upon my arrival at the church the next day, he and I sat down (along with my assistant and several members of his staff) and had a candid conversation about my decision to answer questions in a public forum. Ultimately, we agreed that it was not a good idea for me to speak at the conference. We prayed, shook hands, embraced, and ended the meeting as brothers. James also insisted on paying the agreed honorarium (Added 1/31/12). MacDonald had already made arrangements for a replacement speaker. My assistant and I were escorted to a waiting car and taken back to the airport.

Looking Back

Looking back on the incident, I realize that I put myself in an untenable position. As I see it, I had three choices once ER2 went down the way it did. I could remain silent indefinitely, which would have given tacit approval of Jakes, etc.. I could have held my comments until after the Men’s Conference, which would have been deceptive to James MacDonald, HBC, and those who showed up to hear me. Or I could answer the questions honestly ahead of time leaving no doubt as to both my decision to honor my commitment to the Men’s Conference, and my disapproval of ER2. Obviously, I chose the latter.

In hindsight, I should have canceled the event when I declined the ER2 invitation. But remember, there were many ‘moving parts’ at that time. There were private, internal discussions within The Gospel Coalition. There was public pressure from all corners of the evangelical community, and there were private conversations (I’ve already alluded to my own discussion, and that of Mark Dever, but there were others). There was also a possibility that Jakes had truly repented, and these guys (specifically MacDonald, Driscoll, and Jack Graham) were privy to things the rest of us simply didn’t, or couldn’t know at the time.

Looking Ahead

As I look ahead, I think two things are very important. First, I believe T.D. Jakes is wrong on the doctrine of the Trinity, and wrong on the gospel. I am also involved directly in a matter (the ER2 controversy) that has brought discussion of those facts to light. Consequently, my mandate to “hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it” (Titus 1:9) obligates me to be on record in the matter. I have done that.

Second, the racial overtones of this matter have gotten out of hand (see here, for example), and must be addressed. The ER2 controversy is now pitting black evangelicals against white evangelicals, and against each other with T.D. Jakes as the centerpiece. This is an opportunity to pull back the curtain on the awkward racial dynamic in evangelical circles. Race is a convenient ‘dodge’ for those with weak arguments, and an inconvenient truth for those who harbor prejudice. Beyond that, it is an absolutely confusing subject for myriad evangelicals who simply love Christ, love his church, and want desperately not to offend their brothers and sisters in the Lord by using “black” when they should have used “African American,” or vice versa!

The irony is that this issue is most pronounced when heterodoxy is in play. For example, when a white evangelical disagrees with a solid, Reformed, black pastor on a technical theological issue, there is rarely a charge of racism. However, let that black brother be part of a heterodox or heretical group (i.e., Oneness Pentecostalism, Word of Faith, Black Liberation Theology, etc.), and suddenly the white brother who makes the argument against him faces charges of racism! Why? Partly because of... RACISM!

You see, some of this boils down to what has sometimes been called, “the soft bigotry of lowered expectations.” Asking black people to adopt orthodox theology (when Lord knows they don’t have access to the same schools, books, opportunities, and, in the minds of some... lack sufficient intelligence) is asking them to negate their blackness. While, on the other hand, the solid, Reformed, well-educated black pastor is NOT REALLY BLACK. Therefore, he’s fair game. Irony of Ironies... that is racist! And that’s what has to be dragged out of the shadows.

I’m not angry with James MacDonald. He’s my brother, and I love him. We disagree. We both understand that. Ironically, that’s what The Elephant Room is supposedly all about. Brothers should be able to disagree with one another and still be brothers. There’s just one problem: Embracing Jakes while rejecting others because we question his history of modalism and Word of Faith teaching... that’s the real “Elephant in the Room”?

Go On To Part 8
Go Back To Part 6
Go Back To Part 1

Does Rick Warren Worship Allah?

The universe of Rick Warren is a bizarre place. What he says continually morphs into the demographic of his audience. When is Rick going to learn that he can't be everybody's friend forever and he cannot continually avoid coming clean with what he really believes. I am reminded of an email conversation that transpired between myself (CB) and a Danish apologist (DA) a few years ago. The conversation went something like this:

DA: I am really upset that you are calling Rick Warren a heretic!!!!

CB: I didn't call Rick Warren a heretic.

DA: Good, I'm really pleased to hear that.

CB: Rick Warren is worse than a heretic!

DA: AAAAARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!! What could be worse than a heretic????

CB: A chameleon - that's what!

And many were shocked in the last week to see that this chameleon has not yet exhausted all possible colors! I'll leave it to my good friend Tony Miano (aka Lawman) to take it from here because I cannot cover this breaking story any better.

Chameleon: Any of various tropical Old World lizards of the family Chamaeleonidae, characterized by their ability to change color; A changeable or inconstant person.



A friend of mine used to raise chameleons. They are fascinating and fragile creatures. They are slow-moving, with a lightening-fast tongue. The tongue of this little creature is a deadly weapon, which hits its prey with pin-point accuracy with a grip that most of its victims cannot escape.

It was always fascinating to watch my friend's chameleons change colors based on their mood or changes in their environment or a perceived danger.

Today, I read an Orange County Register article titled Rick Warren Builds Bridge to Muslims.

The article, which can be read in its entirety at the above link, begins this way:

The Rev. Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Lake Forest and one of America's most influential Christian leaders, has embarked on an effort to heal divisions between evangelical Christians and Muslims by partnering with Southern California mosques and proposing a set of theological principles that includes acknowledging that Christians and Muslims worship the same God.

The effort, informally dubbed King's Way, caps years of outreach between Warren and Muslims. Warren has broken Ramadan fasts at a Mission Viejo mosque, met Muslim leaders abroad and addressed 8,000 Muslims at a national convention in Washington D.C.

Saddleback worshippers have invited Muslims to Christmas dinner and played interfaith soccer at a picnic in Irvine attended by more than 300 people. (The game pitted pastors and imams against teens from both faiths. The teens won.)

The effort by a prominent Christian leader to bridge what polls show is a deep rift between Muslims and evangelical Christians culminated in December at a dinner at Saddleback attended by 300 Muslims and members of Saddleback's congregation.

At the dinner, Abraham Meulenberg, a Saddleback pastor in charge of interfaith outreach, and Jihad Turk, director of religious affairs at a mosque in Los Angeles, introduced King's Way as "a path to end the 1,400 years of misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians."

The men presented a document they co-authored outlining points of agreement between Islam and Christianity. The document affirms that Christians and Muslims believe in "one God" and share two central commandments: "love of God" and "love of neighbor." The document also commits both faiths to three goals: Making friends with one another, building peace and working on shared social service projects. The document quotes side-by-side verses from the Bible and the Koran to illustrate its claims.

"We agreed we wouldn't try to evangelize each other," said Turk. "We'd witness to each other but it would be out of 'Love Thy Neighbor,' not focused on conversion."

Saddleback representatives declined to make Warren available for comment. Tom Holladay, associate senior pastor at Saddleback, said the outreach to Muslims is part of Saddleback's PEACE Plan, a wide-ranging effort to solve major world problems by mobilizing governments, businesses and faith communities.

"This is us serving our own community with Muslims here in Orange County," said Holladay. "We realize we don't agree about everything and we're very open about that . . . You just recognize the differences and recognize the points where you can work together."

About fourteen hours prior to the writing of this blog post, Rick Warren posted the following comment to the online version of the O.C. Register article:

I deeply love my Muslim neighbors but this article contains multiple errors - factually and theologically that neither our dear friends in the Muslim Community nor the Christians at Saddleback Church would agree with.

And about an hour before the writing of this blog post, Jim Hinch, the author of the O.C. Register article, posted the following response to Rick Warren's comment:

Hi, I'm the reporter who wrote this story. I'm sorry Rev. Warren feels the story contains errors but the story was based on interviews and documents and it was thoroughly fact-checked. I discussed all of its major points with Tom Holladay, an associate senior pastor at Saddleback. I checked with other sources quoted in the story this morning and they said they did not see any errors. While reporting this story I asked to speak to Rev. Warren directly but was told he was too busy for an interview. If any facts need to be corrected I hope representatives from Saddleback will get in touch with me. I'm glad to see so many people reading and responding to the story. Thanks for your comments!

I've watched interviews of and read works and comments by Rick Warren for two decades. And what I've discovered over that course of time is that Rick Warren is a chameleon. And I believe he is one of the most dangerous men in Christendom, today.

Plastic pastors transparent enough to see through, like Joel Osteen, are not as dangerous as Rick Warren. Modalistic moguls of the painfully-obvious-money-hungry prosperity movement, like T.D. Jakes, are not as dangerous as Rick Warren. Self-serving sorcerers of the false signs and wonders movement, like Todd Bentley, are not as dangerous as Rick Warren. No. None of the before-mentioned personalities or groups are all that dangerous because what you see is what you get. They all lack the ability to change their appearance to accommodate a change in environment. They lack the chameleon-like ability, the self-serving ability, to say what needs to be said in order to keep people in every camp liking them.

Rick Warren is a chameleon. Over the years he has shown, time and time again, his uncanny ability to say what will please his audience at the moment--secular news anchors and pundits, the masses at the request of a president who knows neither the Christ nor His Word, the leaders of false religions around the world, and sadly, even well-respected leaders of the real Christian community.

Undoubtedly, I will receive criticism for writing this blog post. There will be those who will call me judgmental. To them I say, "Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment" (John 7:24).

There will be those who will say that I am being unfair to Warren because he is on a mission of peace. To them I say, "They have healed the wound of my people lightly, saying, ‘Peace, peace,’ when there is no peace" (Jeremiah 6:14 and Jeremiah 8:11).

There will be those who will say that I shouldn't write this way about such a respected leader in the Christian world. To them I say, "Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so" (Acts 17:11). And, if they do not find this compelling enough to question Warren, then to them I say, "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves. Or do you not realize this about yourselves, that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless indeed you fail to meet the test (2 Corinthians 13:5).

There will be those who will say that I am not being loving toward Rick Warren. To them I say, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26). I love Jesus more.

The dictionary has this to say regarding the history of the word "chameleon."

The words referring to the animal chameleon and the plant chamomile are related etymologically by a reference to the place one would expect to find them, that is, on the ground. The first part of both words goes back to the Greek form khamai, meaning "on the ground." What is found on the ground in each case is quite different, of course. The khamailen is a "lion [len] on the ground."

In Rick Warren the Church has a lion on the ground.

I believe Rick Warren is an enemy of Christ and His Gospel. Anyone who is an enemy of Christ and His Gospel is my enemy. The Word of God commands me to love my enemies (Matthew 5:43-48). And that's what I will do.

The most loving thing I can do for Rick Warren is to pray for him and call him to repentance.

I call Rick Warren to repent of all-too-often being an appeaser to the world, instead of being a true ambassador of Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20).

I call Rick Warren to repent of his expert ambiguity when speaking the truth in love is the only speech that will please God (Ephesians 4:14-16).

I call Rick Warren to repent of his unbiblical ecumenism and pluralism. I call Rick Warren to repent of courting the false religion and the false god of Islam, for to enter into any spiritual enterprise with those who are outside of Christ is an abomination to God (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

Rick Warren, it is time for you to stop being a lion on the ground.

You are in my prayers.

Well said Tony Miano! Thank you for serving the body of Christ with such clarity and faithfulness to Scripture.

Rap Artist Lecture For Evangelephants - ER Saga (Part 6)

Rap artist, Jovan Mackenzy, is a breath of fresh air who understands the clear biblical distinction between the church's responsibility to deal with wolves (or elephants) that are inside the camp, and God's promise to deal with those who are in the world. We can protest and boycott and rail against the policies and practices of the sinful world that surrounds us. I am not against that. But should we be surprised when pagans act like pagans - when those who are dead in sin show no signs of life in Christ? If we can get outraged over the policies of pagan politicians, how many times greater should our anger be against those who preach false gospels that lead people to hell?



For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge? God judges those outside. “Purge the evil person from among you.” (1 Corinthians 5:12-13)

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. (Romans 16:17)

But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8-9)

He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it. (Titus 1:9)

Thou shalt not criticize false teachers but shalt build friendships with them and partner with them. (Megaliah 3:17)

Go On To Part 7
Go Back To Part 5
Go Back To Part 1

Coming Soon - Monumental: A Search For America's National Treasure

In July of 2010 I had the privilege of driving Kirk Cameron and his film crew around Holland during the European leg of their filming schedule for Kirk's new movie project called Monumental. Amidst the many goals that Kirk had in making this movie, it was readily apparent that telling the truth about history and having that impact upon how we live our lives today, lay at the epicenter of this project. I am looking forward to the release of this movie, not only to see if designated drivers in foreign countries are included in the credits, but also because Kirk's journey parallels mine in many ways.

Ray Comfort once said that "the only thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history!" And when I grew up I had zero interest in history. I didn’t care one bit – and my father was a history teacher! But years after God saved me I really discovered and embraced the doctrine of God’s Sovereignty. And that is when I began to see that history is His story. God has been at work all through history working all things together for His glory and when we start to see God’s Sovereign hand at work history becomes exciting. And a failure to learn history becomes deadly.

The book of Judges is one of the saddest darkest books in the Bible. I can remember the first time I read Judges and it was very distressing for me because some of the stories are so evil it is shocking. I also read Judges the way I approach any story (actually I wasn’t a reader so I should say movie) and I always understood stories as something that has a good guy and a bad guy – and here I was reading Judges as a new Christian trying to figure out who exactly are the good guys in this book? But the key to understanding the book of Judges is that there aren’t really any good guys. The phrase that appears over and over again in Judges is the same as the verse that closes the whole book:

In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes. (Judges 21:25)

But what does the book of Judges have to do with not learning history? Go back to chapter 2 verse 7 and we will see exactly where things went wrong:

And the people served the LORD all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great work that the LORD had done for Israel. And Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the LORD, died at the age of 110 years. And they buried him within the boundaries of his inheritance in Timnath-heres, in the hill country of Ephraim, north of the mountain of Gaash. And all that generation also were gathered to their fathers. And there arose another generation after them who did not know the LORD or the work that he had done for Israel. (Judges 2:7-10)

The people of Israel did not know what happened in their past. They knew nothing of God’s mighty works in saving Israel out of Egypt. They did not teach history, they did not learn His Story. We need to be a people and a church that knows our history, especially in response to the aggressive historical revisionism going on right now determined to secularize and sanitize a history rich with Divine Providence.

One of the most tragic modern examples of this is due to the concerted attempts of American secularists to bury all facets of the role Christianity played in the founding and prosperity of the USA, along with a gross perversion of the original meaning and intent of "separation of church and state". This is not an attempt to make some outlandish claim that everyone involved in America's heritage was a born again Christian. But neither should we deny that a lot of the pioneers and founders were Christians whose theological convictions played a major role in the establishment of the "New World".



So here's the trailer . . .



Find out details on when to see it, where to see it, and how to get your tickets by clicking here.

When Only Undiscerning Elephants Are Allowed In The Room - ER Saga (Part 5)

Elephant Room 2 - the Sequel - was announced with a lot of macho bravado and swagger. It was promoted like a take no prisoners theological cage fight. James MacDonald's PR machine heralded that:

The rules are simple:
7 PASTORS. 1 ROOM.
NO WAVERING.
NO SIDESTEPPING.
NO EXCUSES.

This was supposed to be a place where theologians can come together and talk manfully face to face about their differences . . . or so they said!!! It would seem that the only stipulation is that all differences must be approved by the "Elephant People" before you can enter the room! Chris Rosebrough, who has been highly critical of this conference, paid to attend the conference and drove all the way from Indianapolis to Chicago to find a "welcoming committee" waiting for him at the registration table:

Today, I traveled to Rowling Meadows, Illinois to attend James MacDonald's Elephant Room 2 conversations. Upon entering the event venue I was met by a security guard and Jim Rowan, an elder at Harvest Bible Chapel and was promptly told that my entrance to the Elephant Room had been revoked and that I had to immediately leave the premises or I would be arrested for trespassing.

This is truly ODD, because the Purpose Statement of the Elephant Room states:

"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."

So, I ask the very logical question how is threatening to arrest me if I didn't leave the premises of the Elephant Room an example of NOT "crouching behind walls of disagreement"?

Seems to me that the Elephant in the Room is the fact that the ONLY voices that James MacDonald and company are willing to hear are those that agree with them.

I questioned James MacDonald's phrase "ringside seat" when I realized that this prize fight had already been pre-arranged and scripted. But then I remembered WWF wrestling and have to concede that "ringside seat" is perhaps appropriate after all. Here is Chris Rosebrough talking about what went down on his radio show:



Go On To Part 6
Go Back To Part 4
Go Back To Part 1

James White Knows An Elephant When He Sees One - ER Saga (Part 4)

In the previous post we saw the transcript of the hotly debated and much anticipated discussion that took place between James MacDonald, Mark Driscoll, and TD Jakes during the recent Elephant Room 2 conference. On initial impressions, the conversation raised four major questions. Firstly, why were there no questions concerning Jakes' long history of overtly peddling his prosperity Word Faith gospel?
Todd Friel nailed the issue in this video:



Secondly, I am amazed that in a discussion on the Trinity there was no question asked concerning the eternality of Christ. That was a big red flag to even a lightweight theologian like myself. Jakes has a history of being very slippery and evasive when doctrinally questioned on his modalism and an interview like this requires carefully defined and phrased questions. Which raises my third question - why didn't they invite an expert on this issue like James White to question Jakes? This leads to the fourth question - was James MacDonalds promotional spiel "get your ringside seats" an invitation to view some genuine theological combat or to entertain with something as carefully prearranged and orchestrated as WWF wrestling?

Indeed James White suggested (via Twitter) that he could have cleared up the Trinitarian issue in 15 seconds:









Indeed Dr. White received so many questions about the Elephant Room discussion that he discussed it on his radio program. This is worth viewing for the educational value of being properly schooled in a doctrinal matter that is of first importance and has eternal consequences. The only sad part of this video is that it leaves me wishing that James White had been invited to the Elephant in the Room conference. At least he knows how to recognize one!



Go On To Part 5
Go Back To Part 3
Go Back To Part 1