Saturday, February 11, 2012

Apologetics in the U.K.

I love apologetics, but I love sound doctrine more. Lots of apologists do not.

J.W. Montgomery and Walter Martin
Let me explain myself.  Once upon a time, if you were an apologist, you were also a theologian.  The likes of Norman Giesler, Walter Martin, J. W. Montgomery and R.C. Sproul was the norm for the typical defender of faith forty years ago.  Montgomery was a Lutheran, Sproul was a Calvinist, Giesler was neither, but what these men had in common was a commitment to orthodox theology and a red hot zeal for protestantism.  This is no longer the case in evangelical apologetics.


I'm not saying that apologetics is dying, on the contrary, it's literately stronger than ever before.  Lee Strobel says "we’re on the cusp of a golden era in defending the faith", and he's right.  For instance, the attack from the "new atheists" backfired when it triggered a surge of apologetic interest from young people. It also didn't help that the past fifty years has experienced a resurgence in the academic world of Christian philosophy led by the likes of Alvin Plantinga.  Apologetics has never been as strong as it is in this generation and looks to only become stronger.  I'm afraid that what apologetics might lose in return for all this attention is doctrinal faithfulness.

Here's a few examples:
Molinism has become the standard belief for evangelical apologists.  Molinism is the belief that reconciles God's sovereignty with human free-will by positing that God knows all possible choices of every free creature at every possible moment (that's the best I can do in one sentence). A belief in an eternal hell is becoming unpopular. God's direct creation of life has been given up for theistic evolution and even the evangelical battle cry of innerrancy is becoming unfashionable. 

What do all these doctrine have in common? They make Christianity harder to defend.

It's become my pet peeve to meet a Christian who loves apologetics more than theology.  I'm afraid that this is where evangelical apologetics is going.

This is also why I'm so torn when I listen to the Mark Driscoll interview with Justin Brierley (see below).  I mostly agree with Driscoll's view on England, I just don't like the way he said it.  England has become dominantly atheistic (meaning all the smart people are atheists), and in order to survive the Christians there study apologetics.  As the fight between atheism and theism rages, apologetics goes up and sound doctrine goes down.  So when Driscoll leans into Brierley about whether or not he believes in the substitutionary atonement of Christ, I'm thinking "Yah! You tell em Mark!"  Then after the interview I'm thinking "Man, why did Driscoll have to be so rude about it?"

In fact, why does he have to be so rude about everything?

On an interesting note, compare his quick and sharp tongue against Brierley with his arms-wide-open attitude with T.D. Jakes a week later.

Leave a comment. :)

Friday, February 3, 2012

England, Driscoll, Macdonald and T.D. Jakes


The month of January has been controversial in the evangelical world. 

On January 14 Mark Driscoll was interviewed about his new book Real Marriage by Justin Brierley from the popular radio show Unbelievable.  Mark Driscoll once again shows that he is not a stranger to controversy.
            Rather than discus his book, Driscoll was drilled with questions concerning controversies in his ministry such as strong language, sexual innuendos, and his strict doctrinal stances.  While Driscoll does a good job of communicating and emphasizing the Bible, he obviously does not appreciate the lack of attention on his new book.  Here are a few noteworthy excerpts from Mark Driscoll:

“I love you but you’re annoying” 
“You’re not being fair, in fact you’re being sort of scandalous and you’re being immature about the issue”
“You’re very squishy, you’re very (*unclear), very British.”

                  The interview gets really interesting towards the end where Driscoll begins questioning Justin Brierley about his wife (who is a pastor) and doctrine.  In the middle of the interview Driscoll says that preachers in England are "a bunch of cowards who aren’t telling the truth." 

Apparently England didn’t like this.

Do you think Driscoll was too harsh? Check it out yourself. 
You can also check out D.A. Carson’s view of Great Britain in light of Mark Driscoll’s statements.
And Mark Driscoll’s own analysis, 

In related news, James Macdonald announced his resignation from the Gospel Coalition on January 24 due to the tension caused by his invitation of T.D. Jakes to the Elephant Room.  The Elephant Room was started by Macdonald to be an annual meeting of Christian leaders to discuss ongoing theological issues and controversies in front of a live audience.  This year's lineup featured the popular author and televangelist T.D. Jakes.  Due to previous association with United Pentecostals and Oneness (anti-Trinitarian) theology, T.D. Jakes has always been a controversial evangelical figure. Needless to say his invitation to the Elephant Room was not welcomed by many members of the Gospel Coalition.  James Macdonald consequently resigned.

Check out his announcement on his blog
http://jamesmacdonald.com/blog/?p=11089

Lastly,

T.D. Jakes is not a Modalist after all!  Or so goes the rumor.  The Elephant Room part 2 featured T.D. Jakes on January 25th interviewed by James Macdonald and Mark Driscoll.  Apparently Macdonald was confident that the Mega Church pastor had abandoned his non-trinitarian views and wanted to give him the opportunity to make it clear.  Here's an excerpt from Jakes, 

"I believe the latter one is where I stand today. One God – Three Persons. I am not crazy about the word persons though. You describe 'manifestations' as modalist, but I describe it as Pauline"

He's referring to I Tim 3:16 and says that what others mean by "persons" he means by "manifestations", but not everyone is convinced.  Some have welcomed Jakes with open arms, calling others to repent, others are hesitant, some are angry, and everyone is upset.  There is a storm in the blogging world over this topic.  Everyone, and I mean everyone, has gotten in on the conversation. 

If this wasn't confusing enough, some have even played the race card.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljH6FdcQQOA

Byron Crawford Loritts, an African American Pastor, has said that "middle aged white Reformed guys" should be extremely careful and called the Reformed crowd to repent of their suspicion of T.D. Jakes.  Voddie Bauchaum responded by calling this attitude "Ethnic Gnosticism" and says that while a white man calling out a black pastor is considered racism, a black reformed man calling out the same black pastor is considered a "sell-out". 

For a recap of what happened in the Elephant Room,
http://www.christianpost.com/news/td-jakes-breaks-down-the-trinity-addresses-being-called-a-heretic-67972/

For Justin Taylor's analysis
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/02/01/the-elephant-room-what-really-happened-and-how-things-could-have-been-different/

For Byron Loritts' call for repentance
http://www.christianpost.com/news/reformed-crowd-asked-to-repent-for-attacking-td-jakes-68072/

Voddie Bauchaum's part of the story
http://www.gracefamilybaptist.net/voddie-baucham-ministries/blog/elephant-room-2012-01/