In light of these examples and other seeming attempts to ignore false doctrine within the ranks of the Southern Baptist Convention, I decided to assess the willingness of the national leadership to confront such false doctrine by using the established channels to compare the speech and actions of local churches to the stated faith and practice of the convention. This process and its results reveal potentially dangerous subtle ignorance of false teaching, particularly among pastors and leaders who are more popular among the broader evangelical world.
This process began on March 20, 2020 with a direct email to the North Carolina SBC office stating my concerns regarding Furtick’s false teaching and the appearance of its cover-up. After no response, I resent my concerns on July 10, 2020. I received a response on July 16, 2020 that my request has been “forwarded to the Office of Administration for our Convention.” After waiting again, I sent a follow-up email on March 4, 2021. As of the writing of this book, no further correspondence has been received or sent from this contact.
Expecting no further response, on March 22, 2021 I submitted and online form with the Southern Baptist Convention Credentials Committee for “Steps to Take if You Wish to Report Other Concerns about a Cooperating Church’s Relationship with the Southern Baptist Convention.” According to this site, the SBC Credentials Committee exists to do the following: “The Southern Baptist Convention’s Credentials Committee is tasked to consider questions that arise concerning whether a church is in ‘friendly cooperation’ with the Convention as described in the SBC Constitution, Article III.” (sbc.net/about/what-we-do/sbc-governance/credentials-committee/) According to the SBC Constitution, Article III through 1.1 states:
Article III. Composition: The Convention shall consist of messengers who are members of Baptist churches in cooperation with the Convention. The following subparagraphs describe the Convention’s current standards and method of determining the maximum number of messengers the Convention will recognize from each cooperating church to attend the Convention’s annual meeting.
- The Convention will only deem a church to be in friendly cooperation with the Convention, and sympathetic with its purposes and work (i.e., a “cooperating” church as that term is used in the Convention’s governing documents) which:
- Has a faith and practice which closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith. (By way of example, churches which act to affirm, approve, or endorse homosexual behavior would be deemed not to be in cooperation with the Convention.) (sbc.net/about/what-we-do/legal-documentation/constitution/)
Here is a representation of the question and answer form filed with the Credentials Committee regarding this allegation against Furtick and the original correspondence with the North Carolina Baptists.
Question: Please explain briefly why you believe the church is not in friendly cooperation with the SBC.
Answer: Direct and public endorsement of modalism.
Question: Provide additional details about the events that are the basis for this report.
Answer: It appears this church has attempted to cover up a specific statement endorsing modalism by removing it from social media and the senior pastor there seemingly reinserted it.
Question: When did this issue begin and has the church acted to address or resolve this issue? Explain.
Answer: The specific statement in question was made in a sermon by the senior pastor at this church on January 26, 2020. I have not directly contacted this church but numerous other pastors/leaders have made public online statements in opposition to this and previous similar statements. From their immediate response, it appears this church does not support this specific statement in question due to their swift attempt to remove its presence on social media by removing the statement in question from their online presentation of this particular sermon. It is the actions of the senior pastor to tweet the removed objectionable portion on his personal twitter account in seeming defiance of their response that is particularly disturbing.
Question: Has a local Baptist association and a state Baptist convention addressed this issue? Explain.
Answer: I personally contacted the NC Convention by email on March 22, 2020. I had not received any response, so I resent the same email again on July 10, 2020. I received a response by email from an assistant communications team leader on July 16, 2020 and was notified that my information was forwarded to their office of administration. I did not receive any further communication from them. I emailed this same person directly on March 4, 2021 to follow-up and have yet to receive a response. Below is a copy of this correspondence:
____
On Thursday, March 4, 2021, 17:25, healingthebreach . <[email protected]> wrote:
Joey,
Hope you are well in these trying times.
I was following up on any insights from the Office of Administration regarding my concerns.
Any further help would be appreciated.
In, Through and Because of Christ,
Michael Hartschenko
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
____
On Thursday, July 16, 2020, 12:00, Joey Prince <[email protected]> wrote:
Hello,
Just wanted to let you know that this information has been forwarded to the Office of Administration for our Convention.
Take care!
-Joey
____
On Fri, Jul 10, 2020 at 3:38 PM healingthebreach . <[email protected]> wrote:
Resending this request for your consideration.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
On Sunday, March 22, 2020, 07:35, healingthebreach . <[email protected]> wrote:
NC Baptist, As part of Staples Mill Rd Baptist in Glen Allen, VA it is troubling to me to become aware of a local NC pastor recently preaching modalism. The sermon in question was posted on the church’s website but the troubling portion seems to have been deleted. Sadly, the pastor posted the nearly one minute missing portion where he references John 16:7 on his personal twitter account. While the broader context of the sermon does not emphasize modalism, it is clearly presented from the deleted portion. What was the decision process to delete this from the sermon posted on the church’s website? If needing deletion without public clarification from the church itself, why was it then posted on the pastor’s twitter account?
The sermon is “Kingdom Clout- Part 3: Ghosted,” preached by pastor Steven Furtick at Elevation Church in Charlotte on January 26, 2020. https://elevationchurch.org/sermons/ghosted/
The tweet containing the missing edited portion was from pastor Steven Furtick on January 27, 2020. https://twitter.com/i/status/1221855523491979265
Pastor Furtick has repeatedly and publicly praised known modalist T.D. Jakes. Is Furtick’s personal recent modalistic teaching from Elevation Church cause for concern regarding friendly cooperation with both the Baptist State Convention of NC and the Southern Baptist Convention?
I urgently request an investigation into this recent teaching and any potential organizational response. I am considering notifying the SBC Credentials Committee but I bring this to your concern first and eagerly wait your response. Your prayerful attention to this urgent matter is appreciated.
In, Through and Because of Christ,
Michael Hartschenko, M.Div.
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone
Joey Prince
Communications Team Leader Assistant
Baptist State Convention of North Carolina
After a brief barely four week wait, I received the following reply:
____
On Friday, April 30, 2021, 08:17, credentials <[email protected]> wrote:
Southern Baptist Convention
CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE
MIKE LAWSON, CHAIR
Dear Mr. Hartschenko,
Thank you for your submission to the Credentials Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention regarding your concern about an individual you believe has acted inappropriately. The Credentials Committee deals with the question of whether a church is in friendly cooperation with the Convention, is supportive of the purposes of the Convention and has a faith and practice that closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith. Therefore, it considers actions and omissions of a church itself, not the conduct of individuals, except to the extent their actions may warrant the church itself being viewed as out of fellowship with the Southern Baptist Convention.
Each Southern Baptist church determines its own criteria for membership and leadership within its congregation. Therefore, the appropriate body to contact with your concerns is the staff and/or leadership of the church where the individual serves as pastor.
If you have already informed the church and would like to resubmit your report indicating such, please provide those details regarding the church on the form for our consideration. If you need more information regarding the role of the Credentials Committee please visit our webpage at www.sbc.net/credentials.
Sincerely,
The SBC Credentials Committee
____
So, after getting essentially no response from the North Carolina Baptist and observing an obvious reaction from the local church in their public display of disapproval by removing the offensive material in question I received an obvious attempt to “kick the can down the road” response from the national leadership of the convention. I sent this in reply:
____
From: healingthebreach . <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2021 7:57 AM
To: credentials <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Your Submission to the Credentials Committee
Thank you for a quick considered response. I contacted this committee because I have not received any substantive response from the state convention of the church in question.
I did not contact the church in question directly because it was fairly obvious it disagreed with the specific statement made during a sermon by their senior pastor which resulted in the selective editing of the online posting of the video of that sermon. The issue remains that the pastor subsequently posted online the specifically edited portion that his church deleted.
I completely understand and agree with the SBC position on local church autonomy and to not evaluate individuals “except to the extent their actions may warrant the church itself bring viewed as out of fellowship with the Southern Baptist Convention.” This regards an SBC pastor and local congregation staff.
As an SBC pastor, this individual has (on numerous occasions), made similar statements affirming the statement in question. At what point does this committee evaluate such public disagreement with the “faith and practice that closely identifies” with the SBC?
I agree with recent disfellowship of local churches employing sex offenders or openly supporting homosexuality. Shouldn’t there be an equal focus on rooting out any form of continuing and blatant disregard for any part of the BFM by those seeking or already having friendly cooperation? If these four recently disfellowshipped churches were not allowed to make an autonomous decision in direct contrast to the BFM, then why is the church in question here allowed to make a similar decision with not even a direct evaluation?
Thank you for attention in this matter.
In, Through and Because Of Christ,
Mike Hartschenko
____
To my astonishment, shortly after the June 15-17, 2021 convention I received this hopeful reply that Furtick’s Elevation Church was “Under Inquiry”:
____
On Thursday, June 24, 2021, 11:07, credentials <[email protected]> wrote:
Southern Baptist Convention
CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE
Dear Mr. Hartschenko,
Thank you for your email response on April 30, 2021, regarding your concerns that Elevation Church in Matthews, North Carolina may not be in friendly cooperation with the Southern Baptist Convention. The Credentials Committee deals with the question of whether a church is in friendly cooperation with the Convention, is supportive of the purposes of the Convention and has a faith and practice that closely identifies with the Convention’s adopted statement of faith. Upon review and consideration of the questions you raised regarding the actions of the church, our committee determined to place Elevation Church “Under Inquiry”. Our next step is to send a letter of inquiry to the church. As we continue to consider your submission it may be necessary that we communicate directly with you concerning it.
If you need more information regarding the role of the Credentials Committee please visit our webpage at www.sbc.net/credentials. Our committee is committed personally to pray for all involved in this process and those affected by the matters that you raised.
Sincerely,
SBC Credentials Committee
____
Looking for a update, I sent this inquiry less than two months later:
____
From: healingthebreach . <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, August 7, 2021 8:05 AM
To: credentials <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Your Submission to the Credentials Committee
Thanks for your attention. Checking to see if there are any updates on the progress of this inquiry.
In, Through and Because of Christ,
Mike
____
I received this reply, but I remained hopeful that things were proceeding:
____
On Monday, August 30, 2021, 16:05, credentials <[email protected]> wrote:
Southern Baptist Convention
CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE
Dear Mr. Hartschenko,
At this time, we do not have any updates to provide you regarding the concerns you have raised. We will communicate with you when there is any change in the status of your submission. Until such time, be assured of our prayers and know that you can contact us with any questions at [email protected].
Sincerely,
SBC Credentials Committee
Then, I received this bombshell of a response:
____
On Friday, November 19, 2021, 15:24, credentials <[email protected]> wrote:
SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION
Credentials Committee
November 19, 2021
Dear Mr. Hartschenco,
Thank you for reporting your concern that Elevation Church, Matthews, North Carolina, may not be in friendly cooperation with the Convention as described in Article III. Composition of SBC Constitution. Our committee is tasked with considering if a church has a “faith and practice which closely identifies with the convention’s adopted statement of faith.”
This letter is to inform you that your submission has been reviewed by our committee. Based on the information you provided, and other information available to us, our committee declines further inquiry at this time. We therefore decline any action to recommend that the church not be considered a cooperating church of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Although we must decline consideration, please be assured of our prayers for you as you consider you next step.
Sincerely,
SBC Credentials Committee
____
What happened from June to November after reviewing my materials and finding enough credibility to place this church “Under Inquiry” to “declines further inquiry”? What “other material” was reviewed in addition to my presented materials? Has there been any other submissions regarding this sermon in question? What essentially changed their minds from deciding to inquire further and dropping the issue? Does the committee actually agree with the false teaching presented? Having more questions than answers I sent this response:
____
On Friday, November 19, 2021, 21:05, healingthebreach . <[email protected]> wrote:
Thank you this review and followup.
I do remain confused regarding the meaning of “faith and practice” if it does not directly refer to the Baptist Faith and Message 2000. My original concern about Elevation Church included links clearly demonstrating this local SBC church’s pastor advocated modalism (or Sabellianism) from the pulpit, evidence that this church then deleted the offending portion and then this same pastor posted this same deleted portion on his Twitter account.
The BF&M 2000 clearly states, “The eternal triune God reveals Himself to us as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, with distinct personal attributes, but without division of nature, essence, or being.” The original statement from the pulpit there and their pastor’s intentional social media posting of what this church intentionally deleted seem to stand in direct conflict with SBC “faith and practice.”
Furthermore, it has been public knowledge that this pastor, Steven Furtick, has openly embraced and enforced well-known modalist, T. D. Jakes. I wonder what “other information available to us” means. Jakes has preached from the pulpit of Elevation Church. While I agree with the decision of LifeWay bookstores to no longer sell any materials from T. D. Jakes, I remain confused how a local SBC pastor is allowed to claim Jakes is the “greatest preacher of our time,” allows him to preach from his pulpit then espouses Jakes’ modalism in obvious and direct opposition to the BF&M 2000 and then is deemed in “friendly cooperation.”
Basically, I refuse to accept modalism as anything other than heresy. This current result of the credentials committee regarding this inquiry seems to suggest that the advocacy of modalism at Elevation Church is not contrary to the SBC’s clear insistence on Trinitarianism as explained in the BF&M 2000 and it is, therefore, acceptable.
I welcome any clarification on my stated ramifications of the decision of this committee but my above summation emanates from your response to the evidence provided.
In, Through and Because of Christ,
Michael Hartschenko
____
As of the publication of this book, no further correspondence has been received.
After receiving the email from the Credentials Committee that they have reviewed the information provided as well as “other information available to us,” I decided to return to locate the information I originally sent to them. Surprise! Gone! Yup, Furtick removed the offending portion that was originally deleted by his church but retained in his personal Twitter account. I do not know what “other” information was “available” to the committee, but the offending portion was also widely available online through a basic internet search. The date of the email to me from the committee was dated November 19, 2021, yet the now double deleted offending portion of Furtick’s sermon was preserved and posted on March 5, 2020 by the Fighting for the Faith podcast, “Steven Furtick Teaches Modalism Heresy.” So, obviously, the committee either failed in due diligence to find the information or they actually reviewed it and found nothing objectionable.
Here is an offending portion of the sermon. This is the specific portion that Elevation Church deleted from its online presentation of the sermon, “Ghosted | Kingdom Clout Part 3,” and the same portion that Furtick tweeted out on his personal Twitter account:
John 16 verse 7 he said I tell you the truth I know you’re mourning I know you’re sorrowful I know you don’t want me to leave you but I tell you the truth it is for your good that I am going away. How could you say something like that Jesus how could you say it is good if you go away we followed you we trusted you and now you’re leaving us. No I am NOT leaving you I am changing forms.
Fighting for the Faith. 2020. “F4F | Steven Furtick Teaches Modalism Heresy.” Youtube. March 5, 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wo4ZV6BUNmc., 2:37-03:03.
But you say it is good if you go away. We followed you, we trusted you and now you’re leaving us. No I am NOT leaving you I am changing forms. See up until now I have walked with you but when I send my spirit I will be in you so I am not leaving you I’m just changing locations. God said I didn’t walk away. God said I’m working in this season God said it doesn’t matter who thinks their mind about you. I chose you from the foundation of the earth.
Fighting for the Faith. 2020. “F4F | Steven Furtick Teaches Modalism Heresy,” 03:37-4:17.
All of this was preserved by Furtick on his personal Twitter account then later deleted sometime after I submitted my request to the Credentials Committee. It turns out it is not as crucial to my point of his seeming support for modalism as some key points made during the remaining portions of the sermon. These not only support the claim made within the deleted offending portion I highlighted but they further demonstrate how Furtick, indeed, seems to support modalism in this sermon alone.
Furtick uses a few analogies to support his claim that Jesus changed forms. First, when a believer’s “emotional sensation is that he has left” (Elevation Church [ElevationChurchOnline]. “Ghosted | kingdom clout part 3 | pastor Steven furtick | elevation church.” Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tk12DsbkB8A, 19:58-20:34) he assures God “never really leaves” but “he does change forms, and he creates space where we can experience him.” (Elevation Church [ElevationChurchOnline]. “Ghosted | kingdom clout part 3,” 19:58-20:34) Second, when his 12 yr old son didn’t want to hug him in public anymore, but Furtick says, “he didn’t stop loving me; the love just changed forms.” (Elevation Church [ElevationChurchOnline]. “Ghosted | kingdom clout part 3,” 22:37-29:18) Third, when marriage relationships loose “goosebumps” he claims, “Maybe the love didn’t leave; it just changed forms.” (Elevation Church [ElevationChurchOnline]. “Ghosted | kingdom clout part 3,” 29:33-30:04) Furtick then relates these examples of “changing forms” to how Jesus “changed forms.”
Furtick includes a reflection on John 16:7. A brief look into vv 7-8 shows Furtick’s assertions utter foolishness. Jesus said this to His disciples:
’But very truly I tell you, it is for your good that I am going away. Unless I go away, the Advocate will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you. When he comes, he will prove the world to be in the wrong about sin and righteousness and judgment:’
Reflecting on John 16:7, Furtick claims Jesus was saying, “It’s good that I leave in physical form because then I can give you in spiritual form. Then I can direct you from a deeper place.” (Elevation Church [ElevationChurchOnline]. “Ghosted | kingdom clout part 3,” 32:37-32:43) Even without looking into the original Greek here, it is clear that Jesus (a distinct person) says He will “send” the Holy Spirit (a distinct person). Notice Jesus asserts that when “he comes” “he will” and not “I will.” Why would Jesus refer to Himself in the third person? He doesn’t. But, to support his claims in this sermon, Furtick uses Jesus’ leaving and sending the Holy Spirit as Jesus “changing forms” and returning in the form of the Holy Spirit. NO! The historical view of the Trinity, as supported in Scripture, must be non-negotiable.
The concept of the Trinity is that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are three distinct persons but one God. Repeated among many Scriptures, there is but one God (Deuteronomy 6:4, Galatians 3:20, 1 Timothy 2:5). The Scriptures also describe God a plural. The plural form of “Elohim” or God is used in Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:26a says, “Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.” At the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3:16-17 we observe Jesus in the water, the Spirit descending on Jesus and an audible voice from heaven declaring Jesus as “my Son.” God does not “change forms” as Furtick clearly asserts here: “Transform. Transform. Change form. He did not leave. He did not leave you. He is calling you deeper. He did not abandon you. He no longer wants to just be with you; he wants to be in you.” (Elevation Church [ElevationChurchOnline]. “Ghosted | kingdom clout part 3,” 30:52-31:01)
To suggest that God “changes forms” reignites a debate that continues to rage throughout the history of the church since the third century. A church elder, Sabellius, insisted that God is one and He merely manifests Himself through different modes. Hippolytus of Rome, Tertullian and Basil the Great refuted this teaching. Both the Apostles Creed (AD 140) and the Nicene Creed (AD 325) affirm the Trinity. Sabellianism seemingly exploded during the rise of Pentecostalism during the 19th and 20th centuries with the rise of “Jesus only” or oneness theology. It is estimated that in the early 1980’s nearly half of all evangelicals in America professed oneness doctrine. (William H. Swatos and Peter Kivisto. 2001. Encyclopedia of Religion and Society. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 358)
Oneness theology is popularized today with T.D. Jakes, founding and current pastor of The Potter’s House church in Dallas, TX. On numerous occasions, Furtick has publicly lauded Jakes from his own pulpit in Charlotte, NC. Just on one introduction prior to being allowed to preach, Furtick referred to Jakes as “the greatest communicator on planet earth” and “my true north” and “an example.” (Elevation Church [ElevationChurchOnline]. (2020, February 17). “Chain breaker | bishop T.d. jakes | elevation church,” youtube.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7Foy9nkMV0) Recently, Furtick related how some things that Jakes has said has been perceived to be actual Scripture in Furtick’s own house by bragging to an audience, “What I’m saying to you is you are so loved in the verdict home that my kids think you wrote parts of the Bible.” (T. D. Jakes. 2021. “Don’t Drop the Mic | A Conversation with Bishop T.d. Jakes and Steven Furtick!” Youtube. April 21, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6dTsG2PCeM, 01:04) Does Furtick seriously suggest that a leading proponent of a major heresy still causing friction within the church should not only be allowed to preach from the pulpit at his Southern Baptist church but that he jokingly refers to the fact that his own kids often confuse what comes out of Jake’s mouth to be literal Scripture? Yes! Is this wrong and alarming? Absolutely!
So, after putting the Credentials Committee to the test, it remains obvious- the committee FAILED THE TEST! It remains clear that something is developing within the SBC that is willing to sacrifice truth on the altar of tone. Could the committee be more concerned about their perceived tone inappropriately dealing with the obvious heresy being preached within the convention? Could tone remain more important than standing for truth at all costs? I hope not, but what other conclusion could be made?