Carl Trueman and the Elephant Room

Welcome to No Compromise Radio, a ministry coming to you from Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston.

No Compromise Radio is a program dedicated to the ongoing proclamation of Jesus Christ, based on the theme in Galatians 2, verse 5, where the

Apostle Paul said, but we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you.

In short, if you like smooth, watered -down words to make you simply feel good, this show isn't for you.

By purpose, we are first biblical, but we can also be controversial. Stay tuned for the next 25 minutes as we're called by the divine trumpet to summon the troops for the honor and glory of her

King. Here's our host, Pastor Mike Avendroth. Welcome to No Compromise Radio ministry. My name's

Mike Avendroth, and we live in a crazy day and age, not just in general, not just in the world, but also in evangelicalism.

And how do we analyze what's going on? James MacDonald, hay haters,

Stephen Furtick, Perry Noble, elephant rooms. We have all kinds of issues that are approaching and are here, actually, and how do we discern the times?

How do we look at this with any way, shape, or form, with an analysis that is correct?

And so for me, as I look at the evangelical landscape, besides Phil Johnson, the only other voice that is telling truth, in my opinion, maybe

I just don't get out much, and resonating with the people is by Carl Truman, Dr. Carl Truman from Westminster Theological Seminary and writer on Reformation 21 blog.

We have him live today on the phone. Carl Truman, welcome to No Compromise Radio ministry. Great to be here,

Mike. Thanks for having me on. You know, I have a lot of respect for council members of the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals who never go to one of their meetings.

I make it a point of principle. And you know what, you must be a big shot if you can still be a member and never attend a meeting.

I guess I must be. I never thought of it. I just thought I was delinquent. Now, just a little background so our listeners might get to know you,

Carl. You got your PhD at the University of Aberdeen and you still came out conservative. How did that happen? Well, Aberdeen was one of the more conservative university faculties at the time, that I was studying there.

And of course, I did church history, which is, it's not the same as being at the sharp end of things in, say, systematic theology or Old Testament.

So I had a relatively easy ride when I was at university from a doctrinal perspective.

Well, we have Carl on today because I'd like to talk to him about what's in the news when it comes to James MacDonald, the

Elephant Room. Carl, from a church history perspective, could you summarize what's happening here and then what you think is going tragically wrong with this issue and T .D.

Jakes and things like that? Well, I think it's very difficult to give a simple answer to that because I think what we're witnessing is a complicated moment in the history of the contemporary, for want of a better term,

Reformed Evangelical Movement. I think we're witnessing the rise of influential megapastors who simply by virtue of their success are being placed beyond criticism.

I think we see a broadening of the terminology of reform. One of the interesting things about the

Elephant Room debacle was how in his initial announcement in defense of his invitation to T .D.

Jakes, James MacDonald effectively dismissed Orthodox Trinitarianism from the

Council of Constantinople in 381 onwards and within 48 hours publishes a statement using the language of confessional and reformed and applying it to himself.

So I think we're seeing a dramatic expansion of the meaning of the terminology of confessional and reformed.

And we're seeing what typically happens in church history and that is numerical success ultimately becomes a kind of end in itself and leads to a watering down of clear and important doctrinal boundaries and a lowering of the critical faculties when it comes to who is and who is not a false teacher.

Well, Carl, when I was reading one of your articles on Reformation 21, the sentence or two that I just loved, you said,

I have no connection to either man. They have no relevance for me at all. I simply use them as examples of how independent, maverick pastors can end up trying to punch above their weight and speak for the whole church, end quote.

And I think that's what you're after. That's what Phil Johnson is after. That's what I'm after as well. These men aren't speaking for the whole church even though maybe by their media and their fan base and their

Facebook friends, maybe they think they are. They are speaking for the church.

Yes, and I think the link to the Gospel Coalition is critical here. I'm not unsympathetic to many of the people involved in the

Gospel Coalition or to some of the things that the Gospel Coalition does, but I received from an employee of the

Gospel Coalition just last week an email basically telling me to shut up about James McDonald because I was effectively opposing the work of the church in the current time.

And I'm sitting in my office thinking, since when did James McDonald get appointed as my spokesman?

I'm ordained in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. He's not an officer in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church who has decided that the agenda of my denomination and my congregation is suddenly to be set by people that I hadn't heard of until six months ago.

So I think this, the overweening ambition of the parachurch becomes critical at this point as well, that to me, churches should set the church agenda.

Parachurch is helpful in supporting the church in that, but when you get an organization that is effectively starting to creep into church areas and trying to silence churchmen on these key points, that is very, very problematic to me.

Well, Carl, what would you say if someone said to you, well, you're just, you go to a small church, a small denomination, and there's some kind of envy here or hate, and someone gets a large platform and you just despise that platform.

What's your retort? Well, my first response would certainly be self -examination.

I think that that is a legitimate question to ask of somebody like me, and I would have to put my hand up and say, hey,

I'm totally depraved. Undoubtedly, whenever I criticize anything, my motives are always somewhat mixed.

Would I love my church to be 500 people more? Sure. If my church grew to 300,

I think I'd be wanting to divide my church and plant a new one. I'd never aspire to be a megachurch pastor.

I would aspire to plant good gospel -preaching churches around my locale.

So I would acknowledge, I would want to engage in self -examination. I would want to acknowledge that there's a certain legitimacy to that criticism.

I would want to respond by asking, okay, to whom are these successful pastors to be accountable?

Is it only similarly successful large church pastors who have the right to criticize other large church pastors?

Go back to the 1980s. Was it only those with successful tele -evangelist ministries who had the authority to criticize the

Jimmy Swaggots and the Bakers of this world? I would want to throw the question back and say, okay, if you're not going to take the criticism from the small church pastor, who do you think has legitimate authority and standing to make the necessary criticisms at this point?

We're talking to Carl Truman from Westminster Theological Seminary. Carl, when you were talking about the issues of James McDonald and the

Gospel Coalition member, what do you see the Gospel Coalition becoming over the next five or 10 years if this current trajectory would be indicative for later years?

In other words, what do you think is going to happen to the Gospel Coalition when shenanigans like this go on and people in the

Gospel Coalition, instead of saying, that was really dumb, I wouldn't have done that but I'm still James McDonald's friend.

Our James McDonald would say, do you know what, that was dumb to invite T .D. Jakes. Instead of me changing the statement for what we do, our purpose statement, that was just wrong and I shouldn't do it.

If things continue like this, where will it go except for more carnality? Well, if things continue as they are going, then

I think the future is very bleak. Part of the problem I think is when you have somebody like Mark Driscoll coming out very strongly in favor of James McDonald on the elephant room issue, as the head of an organization like the

Gospel Coalition, you're in a tough place. Do you ditch two of your guys who probably sell more tickets and generate more revenue to your events than any other two figures involved in your movement or do you sort of hold your nose and continue in the way things are going?

So I think there's a tough decision that would have to be made there at some point. I also think there's an identity issue.

On the one hand, the Gospel Coalition rightly and admirably says, we're not a denomination, we're not the church.

Yet if you go to the website, they have this connection of Gospel Coalition churches.

They put their imprimatur, if you like, on churches that sign up to be Gospel Coalition churches.

Now, on the one hand, they're not a denomination. They're a disclaimer saying, just because their church is not on our list, they don't have an imprimatur.

Functionally, of course, those churches do have the imprimatur. So I think there's an identity issue there as well.

If the Gospel Coalition wishes to be a quasi -denomination, then it needs to come clean about that and set up proper denominational structures.

If it doesn't wish to be a denomination, then it needs to be very, very clear and intentional in distancing itself from anything that looks ecclesiological.

So I would say, if I was involved in the Gospel Coalition, those would be the kind of issues that I would be looking at at this point.

But frankly, when a board member rubbishes

Trinitarianism and can spin that round 48 hours later to say, well, you know,

I'm confessional and Reformed, that raises huge integrity questions for me. It raises huge questions of theological competence.

I think the immediate issue for guys like myself looking from the outside is, what kind of doctrinal tests or competencies are being applied to leading figures within this organization before they hold senior and influential rank?

And there's a pastoral side to that for me. Somebody might turn around and say, well, you know, Truman, you're involved in Gospel Coalition.

What business is it of yours? I have people in my congregation who look to things like the

Gospel Coalition for a lead. And if the Gospel Coalition puts its stamp on a man, they trust that man.

So that does make it my business when people that I have pastoral care for are going down that line.

So we need clarity, and we need, I think, some tough decisions being made by those in authority if the

Gospel part of the Gospel Coalition is to remain a clear clarion call into the future.

Carl, can I call today Carl Truman Unplugged? Would that be a fit title? Maybe Carl Truman Locked and Loaded would be a more

American way. Well, I know your penchant for music, and I was thinking about the

Rolling Stones just for a moment, and the Stones said, bad press is still press.

And so there's an amazing amount of press that's been generated because of this. And so people did not know about the

Elephant Room before, or many did not. And so most people do know now. And I don't know if that's one of the motives of the men or not.

But what do we do when T .D. Jakes is invited to come, and basically before the purpose statement was amended, to sit down and talk about ministry?

I don't mind men sitting down talking about things. I don't even mind when you were talking about in your column that you've sat down with atheists before, and John MacArthur sits down with Joe Osteen and Larry King.

But if the premise is pastors talking about shepherding the flock of God, which

God has purchased with Christ's blood, Christ has ransomed people, and how do we then shepherd them and feed them and lead them?

Then how can we bring in someone that even lay people at the church

I pastor would know is not Trinitarian, that is T .D. Jakes, and even with the language of one

God, three manifestations, we know those weasel words, and we're not even a church that's by a seminary.

We're not even a church that has a bunch of doctors here in seminary. We know that. So if these men know that, then why do they still ask them to attend?

Your guess is as good as mine. I could speculate on that. My speculation would not be very flattering to those responsible.

To be honest, from my perspective, it's simply beggar's belief. And I would add at this point that T .D.

Jakes' deficiency in the doctrine of the Trinity would be only one of my numerous issues with T .D.

Jakes as somebody to meet with on a level playing field. I mean, the original language,

I think, of one of James MacDonald's posts was, you know, this is a meeting between brothers who believe in justification by grace alone, justification by faith through grace alone.

It was very, very clear that he was endorsing the soteriological orthodoxy of this man, which raises to me huge questions of how faith and grace is understood in this context.

So the motivations for these men in doing these things is a matter of speculation, but I don't think that speculation reflects any credit on them, however one might come down.

Well, it's like we have the gospel, I'm sorry to interrupt, we have the gospel coalition supposedly bound together by the gospel.

And I think there's a healthy ecumenism that could be existent in the world. I'm a Baptist, you're a

Presbyterian, and certainly we're bound together by the gospel. But I think the gospel becomes eroded when the definition of God, what his essence is like, who he is, do we have manifestations in the

Trinity and all that? Then it all comes unraveled. To me, without knowing motives, just looking at the method, it seems like the method is for a lot of people and it's underneath a celebrity culture.

We've got multi, different multi screens and go across town, you just get the pastor on the screen.

I think this is crazy, I think we maybe need some reformation in ecclesiology as well because if we just say we're assuming the gospel, we all believe it, and then ecclesiologically we just go haywire, we've got more problems.

So now what do we do? Yeah, I think ecclesiology is key to this. Accountability is clearly one of the big issues and I'm not sure that there are any, when it comes to the public proclamation of the word of God, I'm not sure that there are any adequate structures of accountability that are not simultaneously biblical structures of accountability and therefore churchly structures of accountability.

If I teach heresy from my pulpit on a Sunday, the elders have the opportunity of whacking me and the congregation have an opportunity to whack me and there are clearly laid out structures in our book of church order that allow both the elders and the congregation to bring me to heel on that.

When we have independent pastors who are part of independent organizations where the board essentially appoint themselves, it's not the grassroots, it's the men on the council who appoint the men on the council.

When you have a situation like that, it does not seem to me that there is any obvious way of holding men to account.

And certainly I was told by somebody else in the last couple of weeks, what we're doing to talk to James McDonald is none of your business.

Well, fair enough, but the problem is the ministry of your organization, again, is my business because it impacts my people at church.

What is the point in me telling people in my congregation, T .D. Jakes is not a gospel minister.

You read his books, you will not get the gospel. If some of the most respected men in the evangelical world are functionally putting their endorsements on him at this point, that is a real problem.

And then as you pointed in your question to the whole multi -site ministry, the question in my mind is why multi -site?

Multi -site looks to me like a way of fostering a cult around a particular individual rather than working to produce men who will not draw attraction to themselves but will preach the word.

If, you know, if with God's blessing, my church grew to the point where I'd want to divide it and that would be 300 rather than 3 ,000,

I would not want to beam myself to the other side of town. I would want to put somebody else in there who was a sound preacher of the gospel so the people could have a real pastor who preached to them and knew them on a

Sunday. So I think there's a whole host of problems that this is highlighting. Carl, I'm not some

Luddite and anti -technology, but it is very interesting. Imagine the days of 200 years ago or 100 years ago.

You could pretty much protect your flock from a lot of these issues as you got to know them and you were in some small town in England or in North America someplace.

And when the occasional Aryan came by, you could deal with that. An occasional, you know,

Seventh -Ed Venice was there, you could address it. But now with a simple click of the mouse, of course we can listen to great preachers of old and if you want to listen to Barnhouse preach, you do.

If you want to listen to Dick Lucas preach, you do. But now all this other stuff comes into play.

What kind of advice would you give to people who are listening on the radio today to just be discerning and to just analyze these things?

I think probably someone's sitting out there in their car today saying, how can I wade through all these issues?

And I guess to tip my hand, how is this related to the local elders who are overseers of the souls of the local church?

I think first and foremost, you have to be in a church where there is good, solid gospel preaching yourself.

I was very struck some years ago when I was away for the weekend and my wife took my kids to another church and the preacher who preached there preached for 30 minutes or something.

When I came home, I said to my boys, what was the preaching like this morning? And they said, oh dad, it was just incredibly superficial.

Well, it's fascinating. I'd never sat and told my children what good preaching sounded like. I just made sure that we sat under it.

And when they heard something that wasn't good preaching, their instincts told them there's something wrong here. So first, sit under good preaching.

Secondly, when you listen to a new preacher you don't know, search out the scriptures to see that these things are so.

The Berean mentality. When a preacher says something that strikes you as unusual, don't be frightened to examine the scriptures to see if these things are so.

Thirdly, trust, have Christian friends, mature Christian friends that you can trust to help you when you hear something that sounds strange or unusual and you're not quite sure what to make of it.

Fourthly, I think there is a good canon of historically good teachers and preachers out there.

And it's relatively easy to find out what that canon is. So be aware, you've already mentioned names like Dick Lucas.

Dick Lucas is not likely to lead you far astray. So take advice from friends on who the good preachers are and focus on listening to them.

I think from the perspective of the elders of a local congregation and from these parachurch organizations, huge responsibility on us not to endorse people who are false teachers.

That's what the current controversy comes down to, the endorsement of a false teacher. And those of us in positions of authority will be judged by higher standards, scripture tells us that, because of the souls that we have been placed over as under shepherds.

And therefore we need to be that much more discerning and thoughtful before we put our imprimatur on somebody.

Carl, give us a little info on why you think we need a new movie to change evangelicalism as we talk to -

I was reflecting over the weekend that I'm a sort of heavy rock blues fan and this is

Spinal Tap. The movie This Is Spinal Tap effectively destroyed heavy metal as if it was ever a serious genre for listening to.

I think that in the current, what I would describe as Benny Hinn style meets reform theology evangelicalism, what we need is a good satirical movie that will highlight this nonsense for what it is, make it ridiculous and drive everybody back to a more credible, modest and thoughtful local churchmanship.

You know what we could do - Is anybody out there willing to sponsor that movie? I think I have a title for it. Probably write the script. I have a title for it and we could use

S. Lewis Johnson's moniker for one point Calvinist. We could call him

Whiskey, it'll be called Whiskey Calvinist 1 5th. I was thinking maybe

Dancing With The Stars might be a possible title. That would be great. We don't have too much time left,

Carl. Maybe 15 second responses. I'm gonna give you a name and if you could say something to this person and you had 15 seconds to just tell them, what would you say?

Mark Dever. Thanks for pulling out of the elephant room.

Abs, great. Perry Noble. Grow up. Stephen Furtick.

You should grow up too. You're a hater. T .D. Jakes. Repent and put your trust in the

Lord Jesus Christ. Great. And James McDonald. You can have a minute for this one.

Think very carefully. You're an influential man. Think very carefully about who you give time to and upon whom you put your imprimatur.

It affects us little guys when big guys like you don't think carefully about that.

Good advice from Carl Truman. Carl, you working on any new books these days? Just finishing a book for Crossfire, actually, on the importance of creeds, confessions, and ecclesiology for evangelicalism.

It sounds like a bestseller, right? Oh, I'm sure it'll sell, ooh, seven or eight copies worldwide.

Carl's the author of Republocrat. I don't know if I said that right or not.

What About the Wages of Spin, right? That's one of your books? That is, yeah. And then

I think maybe you could write a bestseller if you address this issue on the elephant room. Well, if nobody comes forward asking me to do the spinal tap script,

I'll certainly go for it. Our listeners today, you want to go to reformation21 .org. And read some of the articles

Carl has written. He has a specially great article on doubting on your part does not constitute a crisis of faith on mine and many other articles.

Don't ever call your church the journey church and speak to Carl. Carl, thanks for being on No Compromise Radio Ministry.

Hey, thanks for having me, Mike, it's been fun. No Compromise Radio with Pastor Mike Abendroth is a production of Bethlehem Bible Church in West Boylston.

Bethlehem Bible Church is a Bible -teaching church firmly committed to unleashing the life -transforming power of God's word through verse -by -verse exposition of the sacred text.

Please come and join us. Our service times are Sunday morning at 1015 and in the evening at six. We're right on route 110 in West Boylston.

You can check us out online at bbchurch .org or by phone at 508 -835 -3400.

The thoughts and opinions expressed on No Compromise Radio do not necessarily reflect those of WVNE, its staff or management.