Prognostication tends to be tricky business; only the foolhardy need apply.  I often speculate which current trends will stand the test of time, and which innovations or events will be considered truly historic.  Sadly history is rarely acknowledged as it is being made, and is only recognized in hindsight for what it is.  Therefore, seeing as how today marks the delineation between the end of 2012 and the beginning of 2013, it seems only fitting to look back on the year that was and prognosticate.  What might the history books have to say about 2012?

Although I would love to try and summarize the past year, that would be more than a bit ambitious for a single post.  When it comes to history there are many areas of potential study, as well as many perspectives.  For the sake of this article I am going to limit my attention to church history from the North American perspective.  So how will history judge the North American church of 2012?

Historically a right understanding of Soteriology, as well as the character and nature of God, were defining factors in determining orthodoxy.  Epistles were written and counsels were called over such issues.  I believe it would be fair to say that church history demonstrates how much of a premium was placed on defining and protecting the central truths of Christianity.  However, if the North American church were to continue on its present trajectory I believe history will record 2012 as the birth of the movement to relegate core doctrines of the Christian faith to secondary issue status.

What would lead me to this conclusion?  Well, 2012 was a year that saw influential church leaders make questionable decisions and take ill advised actions that both helped legitimize known heresies and undermine core Christian doctrine.  I wouldn’t blame you if you missed the particular incidents I am referring to.  For the most part they were not exactly the type of events that mainstream media covers.  However, those of you who can guess which instances I am referring to, you too likely sensed that what you were witnessing was a fundamental change in thinking.

The first event, and that is what it was billed as, was the Elephant Room 2 (ER2) conference.  I am sure it was never the intention of James MacDonald or Mark Driscoll to short sell the gospel or to legitimize a known heresy, but to some extent that is what happened.  How exactly could this occur?  Well, this came about when they invited T. D. Jakes, a well-known modalist and prosperity gospel preacher, to participate and be a fellow contributor to the Elephant Room conversation.

Without rehashing the entire controversy, I will say that although ER2 did little to clarify Jakes’ Trinitarian beliefs, it did send the evangelical world a pretty clear message.  What exactly was that message?  The church is willing to allow relationship and ecumenism to trump issues of truth and orthodoxy, even if the subject matter involves the very nature of God.  Influential church leaders treated Jakes as a fellow brother in Christ before, during, and after the ER2 conference.  At no point did the question of his orthodoxy appear to play a role in qualifying him to participate, nor did the persisting ambiguity of his Trinitarian beliefs disqualify him from further fellowship.   How this could happen isn’t difficult to understand when one simply reads the Elephant Room’s purpose statement:

… We must insist on the biblical Gospel, right doctrine and practice but not isolate ourselves from relationship even with those who believe much differently.

The second event took place during the recent US presidential campaign.  In Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidency he garnered many influential supporters, one of them being Billy Graham.  In a curiously timed about-face, the same week as he endorsed Romney for President Mormonism was removed from the Billy Graham website’s cult list.  This caught the attention of the media machine, and left Graham to explain both his decision and its timing.

So why should we find this bothersome?  The original reason why Mormonism was included on the list of cults was because their beliefs ran contrary to what the canonical Scriptures teach.  They might use similar language, but Mormons do not understand history, heaven, hell, God, man, or salvation the same way the Church has for the past two millennia.  Should we temper our criticism, or worse yet self-censor for the sake of a “higher” political agenda?  That is what appears to have happened.  Two messages were sent the day Mormonism was removed from Graham’s web site; one to the Church and one to the Mormons.  The Church heard political expedience and avoiding offence are more important than helping someone escape a false religion, and Mormons heard we are all playing on the same team.  Both messages are equally devastating.

Ultimately I hope these two examples are merely blips in an otherwise upward trend of contending for the truth. However, if in 2013 the North American church should continue in the same direction my prediction will become ever more probable. I really don’t know how many people give thought to the idea that they are creating the history that their ancestors will look back on. I wonder how different our culture would be if more people gave thought to how future generations might judge their choices. How different would our decisions be if we viewed things in light of history, legacy, and truth instead of through the lenses of immediacy?