Challenges Facing The Gospel Coalition
Tuesday, March 22, 2011 at 6:00AM I wrote yesterday of some of the reasons that I'm grateful for The Gospel Coalition. Today I want to write about some of the challenges I think they face. By "they" I don't mean the organization or council. I'm referring to people like me who hold to the convictions of TGC.
Here are some of the challenges:
- Our blind spots are deadly. This is true of everyone, but the young, restless, Reformed crowd face a unique set of blind spots. You could also call them idols. Love theology? We can elevate a system over God and his revelation. Love truth? We can soon despise those who don't hold some of the finer points of truth. If you read some of the criticism against the Neo-Reformed, you'll see that we're accused of being prickly, defensive, militant nit-pickers. It doesn't mean we are, but it probably means we need to ask if they see something in us that we don't.
- We can be too taken with celebrities. I love and admire guys like Tim Keller, John Piper, D.A. Carson, and so on. But admiration can soon cross the line and become hero-worship. We face the danger of becoming Reformed celebrity groupies. (But I am looking for John Frame's autograph if you know where to get it.)
- We can become proud. We shouldn't become proud; as D.A. Carson says, "proud Christian" is an oxymoron. We have little reason to become proud. But it's a very real danger. Nobody wears pride well, but it especially looks bad on those who claim to be centered on the gospel.
- We may give the impression that we don't value women. I was grateful to see the series by Thabiti Anyabwile "I’m a Complementarian, But..." It addresses the danger of taking a complementarian view too far and erecting barriers for women that shouldn't exist. This can leave women feeling devalued. True complementarianism has nothing to do with chauvinism.
- We may become exclusive. We need to remember that we are only part of the Body, and that we are fellow-workers with many who embrace the gospel but don't share all of our convictions.
There are many other challenges. I enjoy reading people like David Fitch who keep me attuned to some of them. Because we believe in depravity, we shouldn't be surprised at some of the directions we can take if we're not careful.
Therein lies our hope. Our theology, at its best, corrects us. When we really understand the gospel and our need of it, it will protect us from putting secondary things first, from idolizing people or ideas, or of devaluing others. We'll allow Scripture to critique us, and we'll be open to rebuke and correction - if we believe what we say we do.
I'm praying that we'll be attuned to our blind spots; that we'll put our hope in God and his gospel more than in men; that we'll pursue humility and unity with other believers; that we'll encourage women; and that we'll continue to be transformed by the gospel and engaged in mission.
That's my prayer for us Gospel Coalition types.
Reader Comments (29)
This blog is an example why I follow your tweets and thoughts. Keep the faith!
That was good.Question regarding your 1st and 4th bullet. I think you could probably evaluate this personally. Being an egalitarian, do you feel "despised" or accepted by TGC?
Jacob:I certainly flirted with the egalitarian view in the past, but I'm not there now. I'm more convinced of the complementarian position.I think TGC isn't hostile to egalitarians; I attended a workshop on this at the last Conference and found them to be very pastorally sensitive. But I've been in some contexts in which this has not been the case.
I'm okay not being polite when it comes to this. The Complimentarian position is chauvinist and wrong. It harkens back to a time when women were considered inferior. There is no way to hold that position and not be chauvinist.There is no difference between this and racism. Wrong is wrong and always will be.Rob
Rob:I don't know anybody who denies that there are very real differences between the male and female gender. It does not demean any gender to acknowledge the differences. Differences do not imply inferiority.
Cool. That's interesting that you came back to the complementarian position. You must not have blogged about that. Proves that you cannot truly know a person by following his blog alone. :)
You brought up many great points. For me, specially the celebrity part is something to watch carefully. It's good to admire and even imitate Godly men (Paul's imitate me as I imitate Christ), but to keep things in perspectice.
It is Chauvinist to believe that due to ones gender one is limited in positions they can hold. The same argument was made for people of colour. I can pull the quotes. It's scary how similar those positions are.Some men are terrible leaders. Some women are great leaders. Skill and ability not gender should define roles.
"Some men are terrible leaders. Some women are great leaders. Skill and ability not gender should define roles."AMEN to that, Rob. I might also add another criteria: Availability. Many men have, like Jonah, tried to hide from their calling. Sometimes it falls to a woman to fill the void. Quite often women do it better simply because they are usually more sensitive and less egotistical. USUALLY.As far as I am concerned, God can use whomever He so chooses in whatever role He wants to. I am not qualified to question His choice.
This post is not really about the egalitarian issue - maybe I'll post on that someday. I appreciate the comments so far, but I'm going to moderate the discussion from this point to make sure this doesn't become a discussion of egalitarianism vs. complementarianism.
Darryl, you've made some good points. We were discussing this very thing with our AGC leadership.We are beginning to see the stridency of the old Calvinism creeping into the young and restless crowd. Slowly and subtly the Gospel Coalition is becoming known for what it is against rather than what it is for. We are concerned. Werner
When I first became a "young reformed type", I evidenced many of these blind spots. I think that the blind spots come more from feeling cheated by never having anything of real substance being offered to you by the church growing up than anything else. One of the ways that the Lord has worked some of this out of me is by putting me in a seminary environment with people who do not share my views but still love Jesus and care about sound doctrine.
The problem with the "young, restless and Reformed" is the "young" and "restless" part. The Bible says that leaders should be aged because of their wisdom and experience (and this truth is given in both testaments, consider the New Testament term "elder" is analogous to pastor or bishop) and that the young should follow, not lead. See 1 Peter 5:5, and also 1 Timothy 5:1-2. The idea that the young folks are going to come in, shake things up, set things straight, and teach the older crowd a thing or two is un-Biblical presumptuousness, and has more to do with 60s counterculture (which lest we forget was rooted in Marxism) than the Bible. In this sense, the "young, restless and Reformed" are really just a subset of the "relevant" counterculture movement in larger evangelical Christianity that even has its own magazine (http://www.relevantmagazine.com). Also, when you consider what the Bible has to say about being temperate, patient, moderate and operating in the fruits of the Holy Spirit, whither the "restless" part? Lest we forget, Martin Luther, the fellow who sparked the Reformation from which the "Reformed" came from, wasn't exactly "restless." Granted he was a bit young (although 35 could be considered "middle age" in those days, and Luther did die at age 62) but Luther tried for years to get the Roman Catholic Church to change, even to the point of communicating with the pope, before breaking with Rome. (Or more accurately, before provoking Rome into excommunicating him.) And Luther actually sparked the Reformation by accident. His nailing of his theses on the door wasn't some act of subversive civil (and ecclesiastical) disobedience as it has been portrayed in history, but was merely the common way of announcing the topic of a classroom lecture (Luther was a college professor). Had he known beforehand the long term results of that action, he almost certainly would have chosen something else to lecture on that week!So, the first thing that the "young, restless and Reformed" crowd needs to do to address its problems is ditch the "young" and "restless" part. Well, that is my verbal catapult shot for today.
Rob Auld:The complimentarian position is not chauvinistic. The complimentarian position demands that a man treat his wife as Christ loved the church, by giving himself unto death for her. Most women will admit that they long for strong male leadership, not not be ruled over, but to be loved sacrificially.
I surely see your concerns and share them. I don't know if you have been reading David Fitch lately, but I find his tone regarding what he derisively calls the "Neo Reformed" has become more brusque and condescending. He seems to repeat the same tired arguments that we are "insular, antagonistic and defensive" when we respond to attacks on our theology.
As a young ( 36 is still young isn't? ) newly reformed Christian it is quite easy to become known for what we are against, libertarian free will and certain gender restrictions ( Scripturally warranted ) instead of what we are for: the Sovereignty of God, His Glory and not our own, the grace of God that saves sinners, the Authority of Scripture, and the completed work of Christ to name a few.We can become so engrossed within our own niche that we soon forget it is not being reformed or who we listen to ( piper, MacArthur, Carson ) that saves us but the free gift of grace found in Christ Jesus through faith in Him.
DarrylNow you're obviously a man of some genius. I have raised exactly the same concerns on Ben Witherington's blog. Dr Witherington is an excellent test case. He is certainly a conservative/centrist evangelical. He might not like the term "inerrancy", but he is an inerrantist. He defends penal subsitution. He is also a complementarian, and a Wesleyan. So he doesn't fit into the "Gospel Coalition". Now I think that the Rob Bell "Hellgate" crisis has drawn attention to the need to draw a border around evangelicalism. It would be disastrous if we attempted to draw a border that excluded evangelicals like Dr Witherington. So we need to think very carefully about this issue.Graham Veale
Thanks for this. I feel like our reformed brothers can lose sight of the main objective sometimes. Like we bury our heads in the theological sand and forget that there is a world lost dying and headed for hell. For myself this is one of my greatest fears. That I would somehow get lost in the finer points of my theology and windup not sharing the God I love with the people I meet. May God in his grace and mercy save us all from that fate.
DarryllRegarding "Big Name"preachers, I think the antidote is to promote localism. We should realise that the problems faced by large Churches and ministries (like Tim Kellers, or Bethlehem Baptist's) are not the problems that smaller Churches in different towns and cities will face. Suppose John Piper addresses the problem of gossip in a Sunday morning sermon. The way in which gossip manifests itself in Bethlehem Baptist may be very different than the way it manifests itself in a small town. Yet many Pastors in small towns (and other social contexts) turn to Piper's sermons for advice, or to Tim Keller's model for Church Growth. Worse, many members of the laity look to these "Big Name" preachers for edification. There are several ways to tackle this problem.(i) I think that "Big Name" preachers should not make their weekly sermons available online. (These could be password protected on a secure website for Church Members who cannot make it to Church). There is no harm, and a lot of good, in making sermons that address special topics available. But so many sermons are available online the local pastor might feel outclassed; and the member of the local Church might believe that their local pastor is outclassed. Yet the local pastor is the only pastor with local knowledge - he the only preacher who has detailed information about the very specific problems that his local church is facing. (ii) We need to rethink conferences. I'm not sure that a "Big Name" arriving in town with a panacea, and not having to stick around to see how their plan has panned out, is a great idea. I'm also not sure that a lot of "Big Names" are saying much more in their sermons than they are in their books! It might be nice to see a "Big Name" in the flesh. It is nice to hear the material delivered with some gusto and charisma. But I think that something more substantial needs to be on offer before a conference is organised. (iii) We need to distinguish between "Big Name" academics and "Big Name" preachers. Academics act like Deacon's. They equip. They don't lead. There is so much high quality evangelical scholarship available we have an embarassment of riches. Yet McArthur's commentary on Revelation is sure to outsell Beale's (names I picked at random). In fact, I'd be very interested to know how many Pastor's prefer McArthur to Beale. There's something wrong with this picture. (iv) We need to remember that Piper and Keller (both men I admire in many ways, and again names picked at random) were appointed as Church Elders - not as movement leaders. In fact, I don't know that "Movement Leader" is a position described by any Ecclesiology. The more a preacher seems like a movement leader, the more we should be asking them to turn down the volume a little. (v) We do need to ask how the market place is affecting book sales. The shocking, the radical, the new and the young get preference in the marketplace. If a "Big Name" meets that description we need to ask if they are getting attention because they are edifying the Church, or because they are meeting market demands.I've been thinking about this problem for a number of reasons. But what really brought it to the forefront of my mind was, once again, Rob Bell. In "Love Wins" he doesn't say anything that will withstand academic scrutiny. And his overall message is a matter of controversy. So he doesn't communicate anything substantial, and he doesn't communicate anything clearly. So why are writers praising his communication skills? They must be referring to his personal charisma. But that is rather different than an ability to teach, which is what God demands of Church Leaders. And why the panic over one man's flirtation with annihilationism and universalism? Again, I can only assume that there is a fear of Bell's charisma. That suggests that something is very wrong in Evangelicalism. We need to downplay stylem and talk up substance. And that might mean asking a few of our Big Names to turn down the volume.They don't have to hit the mute button; just turn down the volume.Graham Veale
Luther 36 is still young. Amen and Hallelujah brother.Graham Veale (born March 1975)
(Sorry - I meant to say that Dr Witherington is an egalitarian not a complementarian. Doh!)
Darryl,This movement is no answer to people leaving Christianity. Firstly, I think you need to define young. 30 isn't young, neither is 40. I was at a church I used to attend and met a friend. He said, "it's sad, there's not really any of us young people left." It's true that we were young in that Church, what is not true, is that we're young now.When the 35 year olds are the youngest you've got, your missing the entire Millienial Generation. These are the most active, most informed, most connected generation ever, and these aren't the answers to capture their hearts and minds. There are 4X more Millenials than Gen X'ers (the 35 year olds).I was in another church a few months ago. They had "Sunday School" rooms in basement. I was talking to a member and commented on how clean it was. He said, it's because they have no young people. That means no kids, no teens, no young adults. This was a church of adults only (but good reformed theology).The big issue facing TGC, is that you've missed an entire generation. Wait for your teens to go to a secular university and see what they come back like. This theology won't hold up. It's too small to believe 90% of the world is going to Hell. It's to dumb to believe that women can't lead in a church. It's too ridiculous to believe that the problems of the world can be solved by giving money to a church where 90% of it goes to salaries. Just wait until these kids are with really smart, fun, moral, great people who think this is crap.My recommendation is to get out of the culture and into the real world. You'll start to see the deficiencies of this movement very quickly. For every John MacArthur there's a 10 churches like the one's I've described. Take a look at the mortgage foreclosure stats on churches in the US. They're not limited to mainline denominations.Rob
36 is young!!! Says so in the Bible. Somewhere. Hopefully.
Hi Rob, re: your 90% going to hell comments. I asked this question of you in the "Love Wins" thread but you haven't responded I am genuinely interested what you make of Jesus’ Parable of the 2 roads?
Amen!