# The Elephant Room



## Jeff Burns (Sep 21, 2011)

Anyone here familiar with James MacDonald's Elephant Room conference? Last year's conference was billed as follows:

"The Elephant Room will feature blunt conversations between seven influential pastors who share a common love for the gospel but take differing approaches to ministry. No keynotes. No canned messages. The purpose of the Elephant Room is to model loving confrontation and gracious disagreement that honors relationship and allows diversity of opinion but stands without compromise on the revealed word of God. As Proverbs 27:17 instructs us that iron sharpens iron, so we want to sharpen each other for effective ministry. You’ll be stretched and challenged in your convictions while gaining practical insights from a variety of pastoral perspectives." 

Last year's speaker lineup was Mark Driscoll, James MacDonald, Steven Furtick, David Platt, Matt Chandler, Greg Laurie, and Perry Noble.

I was saddened that the folks who put this on think the only difference between Furtick/Noble and Driscoll/MacDonald/Chandler is methodilogical. Furtick and Noble are leading many people astray in the Carolinas, and it's truly sad to see it happen.

That said, the Elephant Room Round 2 has just been announced. Only 3 speakers scheduled so far: Driscoll, MacDonald, and Mark Dever. Now I'm really concerned... Dever has a considerably good track record as well as a nicely tuned "discern-o-meter." But this seems like he's just trying to step on a syncretistic land mine. I don't know if there will be any out and out heretics there this year, but I just don't understand why Dever thinks it's a good idea to associate himself and his ministry with this type of event.

Thoughts?


----------



## ryanhamre (Sep 26, 2011)

They announced the 4th speaker today...







T.D. Jakes

Speaker #4 – T.D. Jakes | The Elephant Room


----------



## FenderPriest (Sep 26, 2011)

Speaking at a conference doesn't mean a man endorses the conference leaders' or standing on any/all issues. It's not how conferences work. It'd be inappropriate to say Dever speaks at ER-Conference, the host believes/does X, therefore, Dever endorses/doesn't care about X. If anything, my _guess_ is that McDonald appreciates things Dever has to say, Dever sees an opportunity to help and influence, and receives the invite as such: an opportunity to help, influence, and hopefully sharpen brothers in the faith.

As for TD Jakes... I don't know.


----------



## Jeff Burns (Sep 26, 2011)

Wow... That's troubling to say the least.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 26, 2011)

The problem is that according to the description given, these people share a common love for the Gospel. But is their Gospel in common? By appearing there, according to the conference description, you give the inevitable impression that there is no difference between you and Furtick or Jakes _when it comes to the substance of the Gospel_. But how far out does a person have to be before you start denying that you preach the same Gospel?


----------



## Andres (Sep 26, 2011)

Hopefully Dever (or anyone for that matter) calls Jakes to task on his denial of the Trinity and his propagation of the prosperity gospel.


----------



## Jeff Burns (Sep 26, 2011)

FenderPriest said:


> If anything, my _guess_ is that McDonald appreciates things Dever has to say, Dever sees an opportunity to help and influence, and receives the invite as such: an opportunity to help, influence, and hopefully sharpen brothers in the faith.



I hope that is the case as well. But I've been around evangelicalism enough to know that while you can hope for the best, don't expect your hopes to pan out. Unless Dever is willing to openly call folks like TD Jakes to repentance for teaching out right heresy and leading many people astray with his prospertiy gospel, and is also willing to do the same for whoever the next sub-orthodox speaker is, I really don't see the wisdom in even joining yourself to this type of event. Look at this video for a good dose of what it looked like when Dever was trying to speak to other _brothers _on a simple issue. He tries to appeal to scripture, they drown him out and throw out meaningless arguments until he just has to shrug as if to say "Well, I tried..." I doubt if this conference will afford a more meaningful platform for discussion (and rebuke).

---------- Post added at 01:37 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> The problem is that according to the description given, these people share a common love for the Gospel. But is their Gospel in common? By appearing there, according to the conference description, you give the inevitable impression that there is no difference between you and Furtick or Jakes _when it comes to the substance of the Gospel_. But how far out does a person have to be before you start denying that you preach the same Gospel?



Exactly. That's what I was trying to get at in the first post...


----------



## FenderPriest (Sep 26, 2011)

If the comments on the announcement mean anything, I think his denial of the Trinity will come up.


----------



## Rufus (Sep 26, 2011)

Andres said:


> Hopefully Dever (or anyone for that matter) calls Jakes to task on his denial of the Trinity and his propagation of the prosperity gospel.



I'm sure it will be brought up. I would imagine that Matt Chandler of Mark Driscoll would too.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Sep 26, 2011)

This is going to cause a stink. I hope Dever withdraws his participation from this conference. It would give the impression that differences concerning something as essential as the Trinity are but a secondary and incidental issue among participants with equally valid view-points. Nothing could be farther from the truth.


----------



## Edward (Sep 26, 2011)

Sounds like a good thing to miss.


----------



## Andres (Sep 26, 2011)

Edward said:


> Sounds like a good thing to miss.



Really? I'm actually interested in watching it now!


----------



## Zach (Sep 26, 2011)

I want to hear Matt Chandler call him "a prosperity gospel clown".


----------



## ryanhamre (Sep 27, 2011)

I'm curious to see what Dever is going to say/do or of Jakes is going to be confronted. While those putting on "The Elephant Room" are showing us 1 by 1 who is going to be on there, there was no suprise to Dever that Jakes was going to be on... there really had to have been a full list shared between all the individuals involved prior to the agreement to be on the show.

I hope the non-trinitarianism gets hit hard.


----------



## FenderPriest (Sep 27, 2011)

And interesting post on Jakes' doctrine of the Trinity (with audio interview): Is T.D. Jakes Now Trinitarian? Seems most people are doing a sideways dog head to this.


----------



## Jeff Burns (Sep 28, 2011)

James MacDonald comments, Carl Trueman replies


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 28, 2011)

From James McDonald's post



> I affirm the doctrine of the Trinity as I find it in Scripture. I believe it is clearly presented but not detailed or nuanced. I believe God is very happy with His Word as given to us and does not wish to update or clarify anything that He has purposefully left opaque. Somethings are stark and immensely clear, such as the deity of Jesus Christ; others are taught but shrouded in mystery, such as the Trinity. I do not trace my beliefs to credal statements that seek clarity on things the Bible clouds with mystery. I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might. His website states clearly that he believes God has existed eternally in three manifestations. I am looking forward to hearing him explain what he means by that. 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.



There are some major, major problems in this quotation and they are not because of T.D. Jakes.


----------



## ryanhamre (Sep 28, 2011)

There's also this one from MacDonald-



> At the Elephant Room Conference we welcome the broadest spectrum of people within the body of Christ to listen and learn and challenge and sharpen, in order to model the kind of unity Jesus prayed for—unity that is built around all that the Scripture teaches.


Sounds very McLaren'esque... very much a "Generous Orthodoxy".


----------



## Andres (Sep 28, 2011)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> From James McDonald's post
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'd never heard of MacDonald before this Elephant room stuff. I quickly learned I do not care for him.


----------



## Fly Caster (Sep 28, 2011)

This is the second disturbing thing that I've seen from MacDonald this week. The first was this Indefensible Defense of Perry Noble. Now this.

I used to hear him some a few years ago and he seemed like a Greg Laurie with a bit more depth. Having become more soldily Reformed over the years myself-- on one hand I rejoice that Reformed thought is having a wider impact on the mass of American Evangelicalim, and on the other hand I see an urgent need for us, as Reformed, to come out from some of this mess and be distinctly seperate.


----------



## john_Mark (Sep 28, 2011)

*Recent words from Jakes on the Trinity.*

FYI, I replied to MacDonald by quoting Jakes own words on the Trinity and his continued association with Oneness folks. You can read it here:
TD Jakes: Association Lacking Discernment?.

I'm not sure how these guys don't see a problem.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 28, 2011)

john_Mark said:


> I'm not sure how these guys don't see a problem.



Some of it is that we've been trained to belittle the separatist logic used by fundamentalists - even when it is logical.

Some of it is that we are biblicists with little appreciation for dogmatic concerns.

And some of it is that attempts to gain influence or curry favor really are a slippery slope: if one compromise seemed to have a good payoff, your incentive to resist the next one is that much reduced.


----------



## Phil D. (Sep 28, 2011)

john_Mark said:


> I'm not sure how these guys don't see a problem.



"sloppy-agape"


----------



## py3ak (Sep 29, 2011)

Carl Trueman admits to a disagraceful episode and points out that the conference description does not allow for the "mixed platforms are fine" defense.


----------



## JP Wallace (Sep 29, 2011)

I'm with Andres

"I quickly learned I do not care for him."

I learned that when I watched the interview he and Driscoll did with Dever where he was just obnoxiously rude to Dever. But it was this week that capped it all off - the nonsense about Noble and most of all his disdain for the historic confessions, creeds and statements of the Church of Jesus Christ.

"I do not trace my beliefs to credal statements that seek clarity on things the Bible clouds with mystery. I do not require T.D. Jakes or anyone else to define the details of Trinitarianism the way that I might.''

It's all there; an explicit historic snobbery, and an explicit postmodern relativism. So there we have the so-called modern reformed movement - ''make up your own orthodoxy, express how you want - don't matter too much, after all we're all brothers.''

Dr. Trueman's piece linked above is SO good - a must read.


----------



## ryanhamre (Sep 29, 2011)

I really liked this article-

JAMES MACDONALD, T.D. JAKES, AND POSTMODERN OBFUSCATION : Apprising Ministries


----------



## Jeff Burns (Sep 30, 2011)

James MacDonald has replied to some of his critics here. At least he's listening, though I don't think anyone should let him off the hook just yet.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 30, 2011)

I think it is positive that they have adjusted the information so that it no longer says they are only inviting brethren or people who are agreed on the gospel.



> FORMAT
> The Elephant Room features blunt conversations between seven influential pastors who take differing approaches to ministry. No keynotes. No canned messages. These are “the conversations you never thought you’d hear.” All conversations are moderated by James MacDonald of Harvest Bible Chapel and Mark Driscoll of Mars Hill Church
> 
> PURPOSE
> The purpose of the Elephant Room is to model loving confrontation and gracious disagreement that honors relationship and allows diversity of opinion but stands without compromise on the revealed word of God. As Proverbs 27.17 instructs us that iron sharpens iron, so we want to sharpen each other for effective ministry. You’ll be stretched and challenged in your convictions while gaining practical insights from a variety of pastoral perspectives.



Such change, of course, can be merely cosmetic: in other words, not a result of actually changing views due to listening to the critics, but merely eliminating a weakness that made it harder to spin or backpedal. But what the true nature of the change is will become fully apparent in due time.


----------



## Jeff Burns (Oct 3, 2011)

Well the bloggers over at Reformation 21 are really laying it on thick, and I for one have found it to be rather hilarious. Enjoy these posts, if you like.

Carl Trueman announces he and some of his buddies will be getting together to discuss quantum theory for anyone who would care to join in and listen.

Rodney Trotter announces an up comming name change for his ministry, as well as a new conference he's going to put on in the near future, and goes ahead and preemptively silences any of his detractors.


----------



## Phil D. (Oct 3, 2011)

Reformed Baptist pastor Thabiti Anyabwile has come out with a spot-on, heavy hitting critique of Jake's participation in this forum. Here's a quick line from it: "This isn’t on the scale of Piper inviting Warren. This is more akin to Augustine inviting Muhammad." 

Read the full article on The Gospel Coalition website: Collateral Damage in the Invitation of T.D. Jakes to the Elephant Room


----------



## Jeff Burns (Oct 3, 2011)

I think that Thabiti's question here really highlights why this conference and the speakers have created such a firestorm. It's making people rethink associations... He says:

_"For me, it tests the bounds of cooperation. I’m no Fundamentalist with well-established separation doctrines. But as one attempting to draw lines–cardinal biblical lines, mind you!–in a community flooded with heresy, this is no easy relationship to balance. Can I really endorse or remain quiet on an event that features a heretic I’m committed to opposing in writing? I don’t think so. That decision is easy for me. More difficult: Can I really endorse or support a brother who willingly associates with such a heretic and extends them a platform? Painful. Sobering."_

It's easy to decry the event itself, but what do we do with the folks putting it on? That's, as Thabiti says, painful and sobering. (And don't think this isn't one degree of separation away from happening in your circles and mine. It is. Might as well learn from this now while we can.)

And some more from Carl Trueman:

_"To be blunt: why so much noise about Jakes when Furtick and Noble have already apparently been established in this Elephant Room circle for some time? Frankly, they hardly seem any closer to Paul's description of what an elder or overseer should be than the Bishop....Surely it is the same horse, just a different jockey, as one former colleague of mine used to say? Are people really surprised that someone comfortable with Furtick has no problem with Jakes? If they are, they should give me a call: I could do them a really good deal on the Brooklyn Bridge."_

That's the real humdinger here. Why is everyone suddenly coming out of the woodwork to denounce the invitation of Jakes but not Furtick and Noble. Both men are clowns, goat-herders, sheep beaters, etc. etc. etc. And yet they get a pass from broader evangelicalism and are _defended _by MacDonald and _invited _to speak in his church. Shameful.


----------



## Pilgrim (Oct 3, 2011)

One wonders how long the basically confessional Dever/IX Marks guys will go along with the McDonald/Driscoll megachurch pragmatic guys with these kinds of events and associations. And Thabiti (a Dever protege If I recall correctly) points out an even more troubling aspect with the potential fallout with the black Reformed guys, with them being virtually slapped in the face and disregarded with this invite. 

If, as it appears, some in TGC don't really seem to take the gospel all that seriously with regard to drawing boundary lines, then what's the point? If some of the big name guys don't hold up the stop sign soon, (including separation/withdrawal, if need be) then this movement risks going downhill even faster than the "New Evangelicalism" of the mid 20th Century. 

As others have noted, if Jakes does actually show up and is called on the carpet about Oneness theology and does not repent, to many it will just look like 4 white guys attacking a black guy. (His music leader withdrew after a furor erupted over his being invited to lead worship at the SBC Pastor's Conference this year.) From Jakes' point of view, I don't know what he would really have to gain by the appearance unless the idea were to perhaps gain a measure of credibility with a different audience. 

One might argue that this kind of thing is inevitable with interdenominational non-confessional movements. I'm sure some are already making that argument. But it hasn't derailed the Banner of Truth Trust after 50 years. But then again, I don't think Banner is open to the charge of pragmatism. They've always retained something of the flavor of Lloyd-Jones evangelical separatism and would be squarely in Driscoll's "Old Calvinist" category--largely rural, cessationist, irrelevant, no street cred, etc.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Oct 3, 2011)

I never really knew much about MacDonald before his trip to Haiti with Driscoll 2 years ago (that sounds strange coming from a Chicagoan) and didn't pay any real attention to that. I really took notice when he and Driscoll ganged up on Mark Dever about multi site churches by using numbers over Scripture. I instantly didn't like him after that. And then this? You don't even have to subscribe to the LBCF/WCF to know that Jakes is one of the last people to invite. If you really want a "black preacher" then why not Anyabwile or Eric Mason. Both of them are within the bounds of Christian Orthodoxy.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 3, 2011)

> For me, it tests the bounds of cooperation. I’m no Fundamentalist with well-established separation doctrines. But as one attempting to draw lines–cardinal biblical lines, mind you!–in a community flooded with heresy, this is no easy relationship to balance. Can I really endorse or remain quiet on an event that features a heretic I’m committed to opposing in writing? I don’t think so. That decision is easy for me. More difficult: Can I really endorse or support a brother who willingly associates with such a heretic and extends them a platform? Painful. Sobering.



I'm glad this has happened: hopefully people will realize that _not being Fundamentalist_ is no excuse for not having a clearly thought-out position with regard to ecclesiastical separation. We need to be clear that there are lines whether of doctrine or association that cannot be crossed; and we need to be ready to be graciously firm about not crossing them.


----------



## AThornquist (Oct 3, 2011)

Joseph Scibbe said:


> If you really want a "black preacher" then why not Anyabwile or Eric Mason. Both of them are within the bounds of Christian Orthodoxy.



Their point isn't about getting a "black preacher," it's about loving confrontation. They wouldn't have anything to confront Anyabwile or Mason with.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Oct 3, 2011)

AThornquist said:


> Joseph Scibbe said:
> 
> 
> > If you really want a "black preacher" then why not Anyabwile or Eric Mason. Both of them are within the bounds of Christian Orthodoxy.
> ...



I thought I had read somewhere that this was a hand to the black church community and since Jakes is such a big name there he was chosen. Thanks for the correction


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 3, 2011)

Joseph Scibbe said:


> I really took notice when he and Driscoll ganged up on Mark Dever about multi site churches by using numbers over Scripture. I instantly didn't like him after that.



Yeah, that whole episode was wrong from the word go. I thought Dever deserved an apology especially from the people who planed it. It was a shake down, plain and simple. That and now this have shaken my confidence in the Gospel Coalition. Some of the wiser more reasonable men in that organization need to put a stop to this stuff. 

If McDonald wants to do something like this then fine. But I wouldn't allow the GC's credibility to be attached to it.


----------



## Andres (Oct 3, 2011)

Joseph Scibbe said:


> I really took notice when he and Driscoll ganged up on Mark Dever about multi site churches by using numbers over Scripture. I instantly didn't like him after that.



But what about Driscoll? Are you only going to single out MacDonald for his pragmatism over scripture or isn't Driscoll just as guilty?


----------



## Jeff Burns (Oct 4, 2011)

Andres said:


> Joseph Scibbe said:
> 
> 
> > I really took notice when he and Driscoll ganged up on Mark Dever about multi site churches by using numbers over Scripture. I instantly didn't like him after that.
> ...



It'll be a long time before I forget Driscoll shouting down ("ACCORDING TO WHO?! ACCORDING TO WHO?!") Mark Dever during that interview when Dever was trying to bring the discussion back to Scripture and in particular the meaning of ekklesia.... So I think he's just as guilty for pragmatism as MacDonald.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Oct 4, 2011)

Andres said:


> Joseph Scibbe said:
> 
> 
> > I really took notice when he and Driscoll ganged up on Mark Dever about multi site churches by using numbers over Scripture. I instantly didn't like him after that.
> ...



Certainly not, however, this discussion is about MacDonald. I can give my views on that video elsewhere but this didn't seem relevant. Sorry for not being clear.


----------



## Jeff Burns (Oct 4, 2011)

Thabiti Anyabwile has written another helpful post regarding the underlying issues of both things like the Gospel Coaltion multi-site video that was recently brought up and all of the nonsense surrounding the ER2. You can read the whole thing here. I think he really hits the nail on the head. The root cause of the current downgrade in evangelicalism is _pragmatism_. 

These bits are particularly good:

His thesis- _"Not asking the why question and delving for a rock solid answer, leaves us open to pragmatism."_

On multi-site churches- _"That’s what I fear I see in the discussion about multi-site churches. They’re not from the devil, but they’re not clearly from the Bible either. And it seems to me, their adoption reflects the pragmatic concerns of 'how to handle growth' in some cases, or 'how to plant churches.' A really big 'how' squeezes out careful reflections on 'why.'"_

On ER2- _"Now, the other way pragmatism rears the ugly side of its head is by prematurely asking “Who?” That’s what I fear I see in the Elephant Room invitation of Jakes and others. In the course of last week’s events, the stated purpose of the Elephant Room morphed...."_

Here's the kicker- _"But what’s the real problem? It wasn’t their earlier purpose statement. The real problem was asking the “who” question before really taking heed to their original “why”–to foster unity among Christian leaders who differ methodologically. Had the organizers of the event stuck firmly to that why, rooted in a careful articulation of biblical command and precept, the “who” would have been dictated by the “why.” Jakes would never have appeared on the short list because a historically orthodox definition of “Christian” would have required clear adherence to the Trinity. But the pragmatic “who” superseded the foundational “why” with the resulting controversy that followed. We might also argue, as others have (here, here, here, and here), that a robust biblical answer to the why’s of pastoral ministry might have pre-empted the invitation of Noble and Furtick, whose ministry philosophies appear to depart significantly from biblical pastoral practice."_

Finally, the question that really needs to be answered- _"Why invite a man to share your platform who could not be an elder at a biblical church?"_

_*Exactly!!!*_ Noble, Furtick, *and *Jakes are disqualified from pastoral ministry (for various reasons) at any _biblical _church. Carl Trueman, Phil Johnson, and now Anyabwile have all pointed this out. And yet these men consistently (at least the former two) get a pass from broader evangelicalism because they have a large following.


----------



## Jeff Burns (Oct 5, 2011)

*Has Mark Dever Withdrawn?*

Anyone know if Mark Dever has withdrawn from participating in the ER2?

He is no longer listed on their main page as a participant.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Oct 5, 2011)

Mark Dever is a key figure in T4G and their statement of faith reads thus: 



> *Article VI*
> 
> We affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is a Christian essential, bearing witness to the ontological reality of the one true God in three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of the same substance and perfections.
> 
> We deny the claim that the Trinity is not an essential doctrine, or that the Trinity can be understood in merely economic or functional categories.



That, I think, makes it abundantly clear where Dr. Dever stands on the issue. And if he has withdrawn his participation from ER2, I am truly thankful for his faithfulness.


----------

