Questions After the Elephant Room
Thursday, January 26, 2012 at 5:00AM 
I was grateful to attend a simulcast of The Elephant Room yesterday. It's an event that brings well-known leaders together for honest conversations about differing approaches to ministry.
If you missed the event and want to read a summary of the sessions, Trevin Wax did an excellent job summarizing the day:
The tone of the event was different from last year's. The build-up was far more controversial, but the actual event seemed less combative. I wasn't able to attend the entire day, but I enjoyed what I saw.
The biggest controversy about the event was the inclusion of T.D. Jakes as a guest. Some have accused Jakes of being a modalist. Others welcomed the opportunity to hear Jakes explain his views on the Trinity. The controversy resulted in James MacDonald resigning from The Gospel Coalition earlier this week.
Jakes appeared to affirm the Trinity yesterday, and many who attended seemed satisfied. I was encouraged by what I heard, but wished that I had a chance to hear Jakes explain a statement he made: "I believe the latter one [one God existing eternally in three persons] is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though." That's a pretty significant statement. I heard Jakes say this and wanted to know more. Trevin Wax also captured this statement in his summary, although it doesn't appear in Mark Driscoll's summary of the same session.
Trevin Wax has suggested that The Elephant Room is a snapshot of contemporary evangelicalism, and I agree.
Here are some questions that I'm wrestling with in the aftermath of The Elephant Room:
How are our tribes shaping us? The Elephant Room exposed divisions within The Gospel Coalition. People seemed to line up in step with their affiliations with groups like Acts 29 and Harvest Bible Fellowship. Evangelicalism seems to be split into overlapping tribes that sometimes clash. How are these tribes shaping us?
How do we handle the size and influence of movement leaders? The speakers at The Elephant Room are movement leaders who influence large numbers of people through their networks. American evangelicalism seems to have produced a fairly large number of leaders whose influence is massive. This is both a danger and an opportunity. How do we take advantage of the opportunities while avoiding the dangers of strong movement leaders?
How do we deal with theological controversies? There were some shots fired at those who raised theological concerns, and those who criticize books like Real Marriage
What's the role of the Internet? I was floored by the number of tweets with the hashtag #ElephantRoom. I simply couldn't keep up. Much of the controversy took place on the Internet. Confidential emails seem to be leaked online even in Christian circles within hours. I've seen two leaked letters this week posted on blogs. How is the Internet shaping the way that we relate to others in the Church?
These are some of the questions I'm wrestling with after The Elephant Room.
What do you think? What questions does The Elephant Room raise in your mind?
The Elephant Room in Events
Reader Comments (6)
You apparently didn't care for my previous comment regarding Jakes, but I'll try again. I fail to see what your concern is with Jakes' statement, "I'm not crazy about the word persons, though." His very next statement was a reference to 1 Timothy 3:16 and Paul's use of "manifested." It seems to me Jakes was stating his preference for keeping Scripture's terminology. Isn't that enough?
Apparently not. Because this issue, it seems, stopped being about the Scriptures a long time ago. Even MacDonald's closing statement about judging whether someone is "trinitarian enough" will be lost on many people. Why isn't it enough to affirm what Scripture says, and leave the labels off?
These are serious questions I've had for years, and, as MacDonald's finding out, very few people are willing to discuss them. It's embarrassing. And to think that some still are confused about why the Church has less and less influence in culture, when we spend hours/days/years/decades squabbling about extra-biblical issues.
Hi Chris,
I didn't get your earlier comment.
"Manifested" isn't Scriptural language. It's KJV language. WIth issues like this, it's important to define the words we use. Jakes may be completely orthodox in what he believes. I'm just don't know either way with the information we have.
You're right that we need to guard against unnecessary squabbling. I'm not sure this is a case in point though.
Also, manifestation as used in 1Timothy 3:16 is incarnational language and is not directly related to the nature of the trinity. Huge distinction. It's funny how quickly people are ready to disregard carefully thought out and dialgoued theological terms like “persons” over “manifestations” when understanding the trinity.
Darryl...
My previous comment was on your post about why you were interested in The Elephant Room in the first place. Then, and now, when I refer to squabbling, I'm referring the need to affirm anything outside of Scripture. That just doesn't make sense to me. As I read 1 John, and the affirmations he expects of believers (especially in chapters 2 and 4), I see statements that are affirmed, in their entirety, by so-called Oneness and so-called Trinitarian believers. After years of hearing the arguments from both sides, I'm more frustrated than ever as to why more affirmations are needed other than what Scripture calls for.
Matthew, I understand your distinction between the incarnation and the Godhead. However, how is the incarnation not directly related to the nature of the Trinity if Paul uses it to further his argument about the "mystery of godliness"? Is not what God does directly related to who God is?
Again, Darryl, in case you're not sure, I'm not trying to argue one point over another. I'm impressed that MacDonald is bringing ministers to a common table to discuss these types of issues. I just hope the tone can be conciliatory, and remain that way.
Thanks.
I'm glad MacDonald resigned; he's so amateurish as a theologian, and I heard him publicly put down John Piper with attitude because Piper is Reformed. I wish he was more submissive.
Having sat under a pastor who is a former Apostolic movement pastor, my understanding is that those who believe in modalist theology or have believed in the past find that "persons" is a distasteful and unhelpful word in describing Father, Son, Spirit because it is provides the foundation for tri-theism (3 gods). One God/3 Persons is too easily misconstrued as 3 gods. My pastor would rather say "One God, eternally manifested as Father, Son and Spirit" too. And I'm okay with that, because I've have extended conversations with him to clarify his position. What I found out in those conversations is that the word "person" to my pastor, meant individual, unique, distinct, separate...i.e. 3 gods.
It took time to get us to see that we were describing the same truth of God in different terms. I'm an engineer. My pastor is an artist. We think differently. It can take lots of discussion to see if we are understanding each other, but it's worth it.
I'm grateful brother James invited brother Jakes. I think it's a good start to the conversation.