Thursday, December 12, 2013

The "oneness" that brings together Driscoll, Jakes, and MacDonald: A Throwback Thursday Post





On January 25, 2012, a group of prominent pastors from across America sat down at a forum called “The Elephant Room.” Pastor James MacDonald who leads Harvest Bible Chapel in Chicago, Illinois hosted the event. “The Elephant Room” as envisioned by Pastor MacDonald  “…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.”

Among those who sat down with MacDonald at this second installment of the forum was Mars Hill Church pastor Mark Driscoll of Seattle, Washington, and The Potter’s House pastor T.D. Jakes of Dallas, Texas. Both Driscoll and Jakes are controversial mega-church pastors from opposite ends of the theological spectrum in America. Driscoll, a reformed, theologically conservative leader, has received media attention for his views on the roles of men and women in the church and society. Jakes, a charismatic, African-American Pentecostal preacher, was once featured on the front page of Time Magazine with the caption “Is this the next Billy Graham?”

The conversation was civil, respectful and groundbreaking in many regards, especially when Driscoll asked Pastor Jakes about one of his most controversial theological positions; specifically, his views on the Godhead. Historically, Jakes has maintained a “Oneness” view rather than a “Trinitarian” view of the Godhead. Jakes’ view of God as “One God manifesting Himself in three distinct ways, as Father, Son and Spirit” is substantly different than the Trinitarian view of “One God as three persons, eternally equal and distinct; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.” When asked to articulate what he believed, Jakes responded, “My father was Methodist and my mother was Baptist. I didn’t have a real experience with Christ until I met him in a oneness church. It was not a UPC (United Pentecostal Church) church, but somewhat similar. Jesus-only, modalism. How they describe the godhead is very different than how Trinitarians do. I was in that church for years. Though much of what I learned in oneness is different than how I now understand the godhead, I didn’t want to switch sides and throw rocks.”

When Driscoll challenged Jakes directly to articulate what he believed today about the Godhead, he responded, “I stand today on one God, three Persons. You describe manifestations as modalism, I call it Pauline. ‘For God was manifest in the flesh.’ The semantics can be this way or that way, but before the controversy started, Paul used the word ‘manifested.’ There are distinctives. The Father didn’t bleed and die. The person of Jesus did that. We are baptized into the body by the Holy Spirit. That is consistent with my belief system.” Pastor Jakes’ remarks caused quite a stir, as proponents of both the Trinitarian and Oneness camps scrambled to clarify and further define their position distancing themselves from Jakes. And my point in commenting on this is not to further inflame the division, but rather, in the spirit of “The Elephant Room,” to encourage those on both sides of this theological divide to continue the dialogue.

As Bishop Jakes went on to point out,  “We get to know people by their labels. Then comes all the baggage of how we define those labels. We are taught in our society that if we disagree in a movement, we leave. I still have relationships and leadership within Oneness circles because I believe that we need to be humble and say we are attempting to describe a God we have not seen fully,  only seen in a glass darkly. Why should I throw rocks at you when what I understand is through a glass darkly? None of our books on the Godhead will be published in heaven. Because people’s descriptions differ, it doesn’t make it demonic.”

This certainly doesn’t mean that there should never be a “line drawn in the sand” in the defense of truth, and I am not suggesting that the nature of the Godhead is a second-tier doctrine that doesn’t really matter. What I am saying is that I agree with Jakes that our “books on the Godhead will not be published in Heaven.” And while we are still on the earth, it does us absolutely no good to stand and hurl theological stones at one another, while making no attempt to understand each other’s point of view. If the word “Christian” is to mean anything in our society, then we must find away to stop segregating ourselves around secondary labels. The night before His death, our Lord prayed in John 17:21 that “they all may be one.” This is the oneness with which we should ultimately concern ourselves.


No comments :

Post a Comment