As a follow-up of the last post, I note that what began as an urban revival, led by an African-American preacher, over 100 years ago has become so influential that the man most-often cited as the most influential minister in the US, another African-American preacher.
I heard this interview with T. D. Jakes on my way home from the Seminary today (link in post title). As usual, I liked what Jakes had to say. In this interview, Jakes, in my opinion, carefully expressed the uneasiness and outright anxiety which some of us have about a coalition of the Evangelical Church and a political party, any political party.
That is not to say that I endorse Jakes, everything he says, and especially not his Oneness doctrinal commitments. That's the amazing thing about him. He is at least hetero-orthodox in his doctrine, if not unorthodox and/or heretical, but most of what he says cannot be labeled. In this way, he is a departure from most Oneness preachers. For most of their writers and leaders, the Oneness issue (baptism, Jesus' Name, view of the godhead) is paramount and at the forefront of their preaching and teaching.
One of my colleagues from "down under" recently published a blogpost (see 'The Batcave') on Jakes and Oneness doctrine.
Jakes' influence is indicative of several intriguing new directions: 1) a de-valuing of orthodox doctrine (as my friend Glen O'Brien pointed out); 2) the influence of Pentecostalism; 3) a shift in the position and status of African-Americans in the US.
Jakes' genius, if not his anointing, is that he has focused his "positive gospel" not on the accumulation of personal wealth, (though that is clearly a "fringe benefit") but on emotional well-being of the African-American audience: women who are in spiritual, emotional and economic bondage and men who have had no real role models of positive manhood. He preaches to the African-American context as it now is, as a result of history.
As is the rule, theological shifts do not occur in a vacuum.
3 comments:
Thanks for the link to the Batcave. I think I am less an admirer of Jakes than yourself. You say that he sees personal wealth as a "fringe benefit" of his "positive gospel" and applaud him for not focusing on money. I just wonder about the accumulation of that amount of personal wealth at all in the kind of world in which we live. I continue to be personally challenged by the teaching of Jesus on wealth and possessions as well as by important mentors like John Wesley who kept no personal wealth for himself at all but gave as much as he could away. This seems in very stark contrast to evangelical and pentecostal prosperity teachers of all kinds (and indeed even to your average person in the developed world). The Lord is of course more interested in how much we keep than how much we give away since a billionaire can appear generous but in fact be still driven by greed. I think you would find that Bill Gates has proportionally given away more of his wealth to the poor than has T.D. Jakes. At times the children of this world are wiser than the children of light.
Glen, my post was not to endorse Jakes, as I've already said. I just think that in an age where "sound bites" very often shape public thought, I'm happy for any sound bite from an Evangelical or Pentecostal which is at least moderate politically. As Brian MacLeran has recently pointed out the media in the US, most often quotes extremely right-wing Christian leaders (Robertson, Dobson and the late Jerry Falwell). I'm extremely tired of my tradition being represented by them in the public eye. I feel about this particular interview by Jakes the way that I feel about an interview I recently read by Brian Houston. There was a lot of integrity in what was represented in it, as there was in the one sermon I've heard him preach (at Azusa). That is NOT to say that I endorse Everything Houston or Hillsong. I'm just happy when what's quoted has integrity.
As for accumulation of wealth by Christian leaders, and/or Corporate ones...I have the same reservations and see a direct contradiction in that and the teachings of Jesus (or Wesley!). I like what Rick Warren has done with his accumulated wealth, tithing 90% and living off of 10%; but I hate his 'seeker-sensitive approach'. You can't have it all!
As Bono said in his tribute to John Lennon, "Don't believe in excess, success is to give, don't believe in riches, but you should see where I live...I believe in love."
The problem with our Wesleyan theological commitment is that anything less than theological and personal integrity troubles us. As Wesley said (somewhere!), "we're not without sin...just more aware of it."
Thanks for the post. By the way as a Mac user, I have trouble giving Bill Gates credit for much of anything!
Yes I'm also glad for anything that runs counter to the stereotype of evangelicals and pentecostals alwsys voting Republican. It's strange to my American friends that in Australia the conservative party is known as the Liberal Party. We have to continually make the qualification of "small l liberal" if we want to refer to someone who is politically liberal in the American sense. the quivalent of the Democratic party here is the Labor Party, though it is in itself quite conservative. We'll be having a federal election probably in September and our conservatuve incumnbent John Howard may find himself out of a job, partly because of growing unhappiness with our involvement in Iraq. We'll see.
Post a Comment