Jakes' history in Modalism and other false teaching is
well-known, well-documented, and longterm. He didn't recently dabble in it, toy with it, get some learned and gracious rebuke, and request some time (removed from teaching) to consider. Jakes has been spoken of and spoken to. He's achieved a big visible platform, which he's used and used. Jakes has never denounced, disowned, nor distanced. In fact, he
specifically refuses to do so.
So now comes enabler
James MacDonald, who - on the most charitable-yet-truthful read I can imagine - has been trying on various techniques for damage-control, like a sister in a shoe store. MacDonald first says Jakes is going to be a guest on this show which features great Christian leaders. All Heaven breaks loose. MacDonald, who has styled Reformed critics as "
Nazis," eventually changes the ER purpose statement, and says he's
eating "humble pie."Selah.
Now MacDonald is back,
thumping his chest and bellowing defiance at critics, calling Jakes a "brother" (later
trimming the whiskers of the term "brother")...
and being a bit coy.
How "coy"? First,
MacDonald complains about the "inability of some to
reserve judgement til the event."
Reserve judgment? About what? one wonders. About the shifting mission of ER? About Jakes' position?
As to the former, it's hard to blame anyone for finding the situation unclear. About the latter, as we noted, Jakes' position
has been well-known. Or is it? MacDonald seems to want to imply that it isn't. Is MacDonald unaware of all the work and effort that's been put into that particular project? It's hard to imagine how to excuse such ignorance, given the outpour since MacDonald's initial announcement.
Or is it that MacDonald thinks that everyone (except MacDonald) is wrong about Jakes' position? That would seem to be the case.
First, against all known evidence (and citing nothing fresh),
MacDonald says Jakes is not - which would have to mean no longer is - a Modalist. MacDonald
further says: "I am looking forward to hearing him explain his position currently and how that may have changed from things he has said historically." So he hints that Jakes' position (A) "may have"
changed, and (B) is in need of
explanation.
What's
more, though,
MacDonald also now says "clearly I believe Bishop Jakes is trinitarian and will affirm such in ER2." Looks odd, laid against "may have," doesn't it?
Now, that is a statement meriting a lot of parsing on many levels, not least of them the fact that MacDonald apparently thinks that the hundreds (thousands? tens of thousands?) of Jakes' supporters
who know no such thing can safely and responsibly be left in the dark, and conceivably die safely without that knowledge, worshiping what MacDonald himself has agreed is a false (Sabellian) god, until MacDonald's paid event brings enlightenment to those who can afford it.
But this whole post is about focusing on
one issue, one question. Here it is. It's worth shouting.
It feels surreal to have to explain this. But here we are, aren't we? So let's do this.
What is a pastor's chief "job," according to (hel-lo?)
God? It is to labor in the Word and doctrine (
1 Tim. 5:17). It is to preach the Word (
2 Tim. 4:1-2). It is to preach the Word and truth so clearly as to expose and refute error (
Titus 1:9). These are matters of
communication, in which it is the very heart and definition of the role of the pastor to (A) communicate (B) truth (C) clearly and (D) convincingly. Obviously, the more important the topic, the more critical these essentials.
Well then:
Is the nature of God important? (Again, even having to pose the question makes me feel we're in Bizzaroworld... but that's hardly Breaking News, is it?)
Of course the nature of God is important. Living as we are thousands of years after the close of the Canon, and many hundreds of years after Nicea and Chalcedon, is the Biblical doctrine of the Trinity essential to understanding the nature of God? Indeed,
one of James MacDonald's mouths says that the doctrine of the "trinity is clearly a major – national boarder [
sic] issue," and I agree with that mouth.
