There can be no doubt, The Gospel Coalition (TGC) has been galvanizing many younger evangelicals to re-think their theology and practice (especially if it is of the Reformed variety.) I applaud this new theological energy. My question nonetheless is (given its moniker) will TGC be a force for coalition or expedition? “Coalition” describes the coalescing of a group of people or nations to agree on some understandings in order to defend some boundary or prepare for war (think Pres. Bush’s “coalition of the willing”). “Expedition” on the other hand, is the organizing of a group to adequately prepare for an exploration/adventure into unknown territory. Will TGC be a coalition for the hardening of some doctrinal lines in order to defend boundaries and/or launch an attack of some kind (say against others who don’t agree with its take on Reformed theology)? Or will TGC be a force for the preparation of missionaries (in doctrine and practice) to engage the unknown territories of the new cultures of post Christendom? Will TGC be a coalition or an expedition?
Ever since the publishing of Collin Hansen’s The Young, Restless, Reformed, a lot of attention has been drawn towards the revival of a Neo-Reformed theology among the younger evangelicals. In distinction from the pragmatic and the emerging responses (remember this) to the challenges of post Christendom/post modernity and the decline of evangelicalism in N America, the Neo Reformed groups have pressed for a return and renewal of protestant orthodoxy as the means towards renewal of the church. Main figures in this new push for a purer or more missional Reformed theology include David Wells, Al Mohler, John Piper, Don Carson, Mark Driscoll, Ed Stetzer and Tim Keller. Let me be explicit that I value and have learned much from each of these writers/thinkers/ preachers. I especially value what I have learned from Tim Keller and Ed Stetzer. Let me also say explicitly, I do not disavow the Reformation. We can no more write off the past 500 years any more than we can write off the patristic age and return to a purer “primitive” Christianity. Nonetheless, for the current cultural challenge – post Christendom/post modernity in the West – I am concerned that the approach of the Gospel Coalition is ill-suited to engage the cultural challenges of post-Christendom. Let me offer five statements that encapsulate what I think TGC might be implying in their work so far, even though they may not say it explicitly. I think, if true, each of these positions will inhibit, if not prohibit, TGC from being a cause for Christ in the engagement of the new post Christendom cultures of the West. TGC will then become more of a coalition than an expedition. So I am asking (with genuine concern) whether these statements are accurate to the positions as navigated by TGC or just the misconstrual of my Anabaptist fear laden projections? Here are the statements:
1.) If We Purify Our Doctrine The Rest Will Follow. I have observed an impulse in the TGC that says if we just get our doctrine right (which means a certain version of Reformed orthodoxy), then mission and church renewal in post Christendom will follow. But at least in post Christendom (as it is in the N United States urban areas and Canada) this is not enough. This is not 16th century Europe where the majority Catholic population, under the influence of a corrupt Roman Catholicism, need doctrinal renewal. This is not the 1920′s N. America where the majority protestant mainline Christian population, under the influence of a modernist liberalism, need doctrinal renewal. This is post Christendom territory where there are very few Christians of any kind left who have no doctrine to be renewed. If TGC then thinks doctrinal purity is the single issue, and leave it at that, they will be a coalition for retrenchment as opposed to an expedition for mission. (As some have suggested, this is already proving true in the SBC).
2.) We Must Return to the Reformation. Is the TGC seeking a return to the Reformation? The Reformation cannot be discounted, but neither can it be returned to. The Reformation was built on the back of Christendom. It gave birth to the Sola’s, especially Sola Scripture and Sola Fide which in their time called people to a renewed purity and personal commitment to the gospel. Today however, those same impulses, aligned with the Enlightenment, have given birth to a modernist individualism, Christian relativism, Cartesian rationalism and experientialism that later became modernity, protestant liberalism and indeed the current manifestations of evangelicalism that the TGC appears to be in critique of. We therefore must go beyond the Reformation, not back to it. We must be sober about the doctrinal problems of the Reformation that elevate the individual, isolate Scripture (as an authority and conceptual document) away from the church and a way of life. If TGC is only a call to a purer Reformed orthodoxy, it will be a coalition for retrenchment as opposed to an expedition for the advancement of the gospel into post Christendom.
3.) Woman Cannot Be Pastors. Is TGC seeking to enforce a particular reading of the NT that opposes the role of women in authority within church ministry? I have observed the prominence of a particular view of women in ministry in the TGC. I would characterize this view as a.) based in an inerrancy view of the text, which b.) latches on to texts as if they were isolated units of universal teaching on women, which then c.) leads to a blindness to the NT’s overall elevation of women into ministerial authority in the church. To me, this robs the church of the new politic that was birthed in Jesus Christ. It robs our witness to the reconciled relationship born of Jesus Christ in the post-non-Christendom cultures. I personally have spoken against the egalitarian form of politics I believe has been adopted naively by some evangelical feminists at the expense of both women and Christian marriage. Nonetheless, I believe that the NT calls women into the full participation in the new authority of the Kingdom unleashed in the church (this means I affirm the full ordination of women). I believe the TGC will be impotent to engage the culture of post Christendom if it cannot give witness to the new new “politics of Jesus” in its gender politics. It will be a coalition for retrenchment versus an expedition for the advancement of Christ’s Mission in post Christendom.
4.) The New Perspective is Our Enemy. John Piper and Don Carson have energetically sought to dismantle the New Perspective on Paul (most notably here, here and here). I do not agree with everything written by Stendahl, Sanders, Dunn, Wright etc. Nonetheless, I believe it is a mistake to see the New Perspective as the enemy (it’s not even that new any more). I believe there is much to learn from it.(I recommend everyone start with ch. 11 of John Howard Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus and go from there). The Reformation tendency has been to separate the justification of the individual in Christ (due to developments extending from the Reformation) from the justice of God and the new social order God is inaugurating in the world thru Christ. As long as we keep doing this we will forever be conceptualizing the gospel and separating it from the life of the Triune God as worked out in His Mission. We then will be hindered from socially embodying the gospel in post-Christendom. Maybe even worse, emerging Christians will continue to make the error of separating social justice from the redemption of the individual in Christ. I think the New Perspective is not the enemy but a source of great insights for this much needed renewal of the gospel. If TGC makes the New Perspective the enemy, I believe this is another sign TGC is becoming a coalition for retrenchment not an expedition for Mission.
5.) The Mega Church Still Makes Sense. Because of the above mentioned Reformed tendencies (exacerbated by American pragmatic evangelicalism) to individualize the gospel, to individualize the reading of Scripture, to individualize salvation, to separate doctrine from “way of life,” the Neo-Reformed do not see the problem of mega church for the future of church engagement with post-Christendom. Mega churches have worked well within Christendom’s modernity. Here the individual reigned supreme and the remainder of Christian culture lingered long enough to provide a foundation for masses of individuals to become Christians within large servicing organizations. Now however, with the lingering remainder of Christian culture gone, the gospel must take root in a social communal embodiment. Here is where the gospel can be seen, heard, understood, experienced by those completely foreign to our faith in Christ. This kind of communal embodiment is nigh impossible in mega sized organizations (although I think I’ve seen it at least once). Still, I see the Neo-Reformed enamored that good solid preaching and culturally relative apologetics will gather post-non-Christendom into its churches. I fear TGC then becomes a force for coalescing mega size preaching churches that preach to the already initiated. We in essence become a church that preaches to ourselves and in the process retrench from being expedited for Mission into post Christendom. (P.S. I still strongly believe in preaching!! As my writings and “the college of preachers” at our church will attest to).
A Call to The Neo-Anabaptist Missional Vision
For the reasons stated above, and indeed some more reasons I have not posted, I suggest that the Neo-Anabaptist Missional impulse is a viable alternative to the Neo-Reformed groups including TGC. For both historical reasons and theological reasons, I believe the Anabaptist Missional impulse has much to offer the dwindling churches of N America in engaging the new post Christendom cultures of the West. I include in this camp Alan Hirsch, Alan Roxburgh, Shane Claiborne, Neil Cole, Scot McKnight. I myself have tried to write to contribute to the furtherance of this vision. Tim Keller has characterized the Neo Anabaptists on this blog as follows: “… As you know, I think that the neo-Anabaptist missionals are a bit too rigid in what they are putting forth for the future, but its emphasis on process over program, ecclesial liturgy over experientialism, deep community, concern for the poor and justice, and contextualization-are all quite right. and traditional mega churches don’t see this.” I agree with Tim Keller on his description, including the being “a bit too rigid” part. Such statements however encourage me to believe that Neo Reformed and Neo Anabaptist should be in dialogue together to further Christ’s Kingdom (some of my best friends are Neo-Reformed 
). So I am open to dialoguing and even being proven wrong on the five positional statements above that I suspect the Gospel Coalition of advocating. Where am I right? Where am I wrong?
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
This is a great layout and summary of the phenomenon of young Calvinists that aren’t from a traditionally Calvinist Church (something like the Presbyterians). The idea of the TGC group is just another move forward to create more foundations for this new movement that some denominations (primarily the SBC which I am a part of) just don’t want to recognize.
I think your 5 points (how ironic) really sketched out the issues that are greater than the TGC. The doctrinal emphasis piece is spot on. The idea that an orthodox Reformed doctrine is the only correct option simply leaves to much out.
Also, anyone holding so strong to the reformation but also completely agreeing with Nicean Christianity makes no sense. The way they hold high the Reformation instantly creates a divide with Anglicans, some Methodists, the RCC and the various strains of Greek Orthodoxy that are growing quickly within modern America. To leave out the first 1500 years of the development of doctrine and only mention it when necessary (and precluding it with a statement regarding it being “Catholic” but safe) leaves as good of a foundation as a celebrity marriage.
I like the Neo-Anabaptist perspective, and I think that it serves as a good jump off place for those that are “baptist” but don’t fit the mold of the traditional denominations. My only concern with the moniker is how ecumenicism functions within it, since these “Neo” groups are alot more open to the Great Tradition than traditional anabaptists.
Hear! Hear! Please direct us to further guidance, in addition to The Great Giveaway and Yoder.
David,
Another great post …
There are already many pre-existing neo-Anabaptist movements in North America (although many of them wouldn’t explicitly identify themselves with the term). Guys like Alan Hirsch and Shane Claiborne, while different, have moved well beyond the realm of theorizing and are forming ‘expeditions’ already. Your post ends with a call to a neo-Anabaptist vision, but what does this mean? As we are seeing the emergence of yet another more a formalized neo-Reformed coalition, are you suggesting neo-Anabaptists do the same? (but call it an ‘expedition’, of course)
Darrel Guder, the editor of the book, Missional Church, spoke at an Ecclesia (http://www.ecclesianet.com/) missional church planting conference not long ago (Dave was there as well). When asked about his thoughts on women in ministry, Dr. Guder responded, “Well, I’m reformed so of course I have never had a problem with it. Afterall, we are the champions of the priesthood of all believers.” There was a pregnant pause amongst all those in attendance as we tries to make sense of what he had just said. Later, when pushed for further clarity in a smaller conversation, Dr. Guder clarified that people like John Piper, Mark Driscoll, Al Mohler, and Ed Stetzer do not represent the theologically reformed perspective. They (and nearly the entire Baptist stream of evangelicalism) are better described as neo-puritans. This, as an acquaintance of mine, Bob Robinson, has pointed out, is a subtle, but vital distinction to be made. You can see his initial post on the subject here – http://vanguardchurch.blogspot.com/2009/04/deciphering-nuanced-differences-between.html. Note the subsequent posts on the subject at the bottom of that post.
Both for the sake of me dear professors of Christian history from Fuller and for those who do truly stand in the reformed (and not neo-puritan) tradition, I think this is an important addendum to the good and necessary conversation here.
I really appreciate this. I have some ministry friends who are connected with TGC and some others who aren’t crazy about them aligning themselves in this way. This will help me help them think through it all. Like you (I think), I look at the TGC and say, “Well, yeah, kind of, but…” I hope that things turn out well, and I think that will only happen if there is some genuine listening to the “neo-anabaptist” side of things. I do have one question. Much of your critique here and elsewhere is connected to the idea that these ways of doing church and talking about God is not best for post-Christendom contexts, most visible now in urban America, Canada, and Europe. My guess is that they might look at you and say, “What do you mean it doesn’t work? We quite obviously have growing churches with faithful disciples using this model?” How would you respond? Would you focus on the changes that will continue to happen, so that your answer is a plea to look further into the future and prepare for that? Or would you say that the “successes” we see in such churches are not as great as they might think? Or something else altogether?
…
Randy,
I think the Neo-Anabaptist movement would be served by having a network like TGC. I think many Missional leaders would be helped by understanding the theological foundations and their relation to post Christendom/Constantinian understandings of church and culture.
JR … thanks for the helpful neo-puritan distinction. I think it makes sense. I think the evangelical baptists went quasi reformed (i.e. neo-puritan) versus Anabaptist – a closer historical lineage -at the modernist fundamentalist contoversy. There the Baptist revivalists alligned with Princetonian theology (Warfield, Hodge, Machen) to defend the Bible and ended up picking and choosing pieces of the Reformed pie.
Michael,
My answer to your question concerning the successes of No-Reformed churches in post Christendom territory can be found in this post here http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/church-planting-assumptions-of-the-neo-reformed-some-observations-for-testing/
thanks all for the conversation
David-
As you often are, you are spot-on here. The five things you point out are five “anxieties” I have about this whole neo-Reformed movement as well, though you articulate here some things that I had merely intuited.
As one seeking to BE a conversation between the Neo-Anabaptist and the Neo-Reformed impulses, I couldn’t agree more whole-heartedly with your conclusions. (Though I’m obviously more in what JR Rozko calls the reformed camp, vs. the neo-puritan camp.) Speaking of which, did I ever tell you that I am the impetus for the Why We’re Not Emergent book? We can talk about it Saturday, I guess.
Speaking of which, should I do anything to prepare for that?
Michael, if I may, I’d like to take my own stab at your question. Not presuming to speak for Dave, just using it as an opportunity to tease out a few thoughts I have had as people have asked me that very question.
I would say that we need to rethink our definition of success. I have a huge hangup with missional-minded folks who try and make the argument that we need new tactics, strategies, and paradigms on account of the post-Christian culture that is creeping into the West. That’s true, but it misses the point. It begins with culture and responds to that rather than beginning with the Bible & theology. Missional ecclesiology is fitting, not on account of a particular cultural climate, but because it is out-right more faithful to God’s intention for the Church. Therein lies the great importance of the neo-anabaptist vantage point – it rejects out-of-hand a Christendom mindset which is deadly to faithful ecclesiology. Simply because an ecclesiology which rests on Christendom assumptions “works” because it’s employed in a Christendom context does not make it faithful – even if God is still God and uses it for the sake of his Kingdom and the making of disciples.
Maybe that gets to your question and maybe not. Of course there is no easy or satisfactory straightforward answer to give to the question you posed as it presupposes common understandings of huge things like salvation, the nature of the gospel, and what discipleship entails.
1- TGC will be fine as long as they are focused on staying true rather than numbers.
2- I have yet to sit and listen to a female pastor who was theologically sound.
I have yet to meet a theologically sound woman who wanted to be a pastor.
wow
[...] I find this to be an excellent response. [...]
Hmmm… looks like you and Karen Ward are gonna have to duke it out – you propose the neo-anabaptist missional vision: she has written that it is time to ‘seize the Episcopal moment’.
Here is a link (not sure if it works for non-members of Anglimergent but I think it does). It is a good article to broaden this conversation. Forward by Brian McLaren. Co-authored by Donald Schell.
http://anglimergent.ning.com/profiles/blogs/seize-the-episcopal-moment
David,
Thanks for the link. Very fascinating; I remember reading this but I didn’t take notice of the pertinent points. You do seem to back off your initial point in the comments a bit, when Keller speaks about different urban dynamics than you pointed toward as explaining the flourishing of certain Christendom-based churches in post-Christendom contexts. Would you still stand by what you wrote in the post? If not, how would tweak your thoughts?
JR,
Thanks for the response. I like what you’re saying and I’m with you 100%. One of the difficulties I’ve run up against is that when I try to redefine “success” for ministers of the pragmatic-evangelical bent, they expect a new and compact definition of success to replace the old one. They aren’t real patient sometimes when I say that’s maybe missing the point.
RDM,
Sorry to hear that. I’m not trying to be sarcastic, but you should listen to a wider variety of women. To clarify, when you say “pastor” here do you mean any type of official ministry position, or just a teaching role, or just “lead pastor”?
One other comment I’d add is that I really think the New Perspective thing is a pretty big deal. I don’t want to think it’s a big deal, but I can’t avoid because it seems related to what we actually mean when we use the word “gospel.” Many anti-NP people fail to see that the “gospel,” specifically, is less about how to be saved (i.e. justification by faith) and more about the declaration of Jesus’ Lordship and the coming of God’s kingdom of love and grace. (We must remember that Paul said the gospel brings salvation to all; it is the victory of a gracious saving King that enables salvation by grace.) Without that core perspective on “the gospel,” it’d be hard to be The Gospel Anything.
Speaking of which, three cheers for TGE – The Gospel Expedition, the new network for Neo-Anabaptists committed to a radically missional ministry!
Dr. Fitch,
But surely you must agree that the Neo-reformed (or Neo-puritan) movement has been effective in post Christendom. Just look at Driscoll’s church in Seattle or Keller’s in Manhattan; both of them have huge conversion rates. I personally do not agree with Reformed theology, nevertheless, they are quite effective in churning out disciples of Christ. We will know them by their “fruits” as it is said.
Greg
I do not wish to imply that the work done by either Redeemer or Mars Hill is illegitimate. It’s work for God’s Kingdom in Christ. But as I already talked about in my post referred to in the above comment, I suspect Redeemer and Mars Hill is built on the foundations of Christendom for the reasons given there. Here it is the link for that post again: http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/church-planting-assumptions-of-the-neo-reformed-some-observations-for-testing/
@ RDM…
Of course you haven’t, because your definition of “theologically sound” is “believes women should not be pastors.”
It’s a circular argument, sir.
On another note, thanks for the post, Dave – seems to me a good perception of some of the difficulties that lie ahead for TGC.
And JR – Guder’s quote is priceless! I’ve never heard of the distinction between “neo-puritan” and Reformed. Thanks.
I really appreciate this post, David. In the context of our community, ministry & church community here in Winnipeg, I realize that we are becoming much of what you describe in the neo-Anabaptist group. I appreciate this because we want to be intentional about it and need guidance and direction to get there. So thank you.
Also, I hear that you will be joining us here in Winnipeg this year. Looking forward to connecting.
Peace,
Jamie
Ben Sternke
Would that the issue of women in the pastorate was the only issue on which they were in error. In fact, that was the least of the problems.
RDM – noted, and I’m sorry to hear that. But it still doesn’t really deal with the issue of women in ministry from a biblical perspective.
David:
As usual, excellent post. I’m one of TGC crowd, and I think you’ve got some great things to say here. It could be that the Reformed missional crowd and the Neo-Anabaptist crowd have a lot to learn from each other. You can see my blind spots better than I can.
I have a few quibbles here and there, but overall, this is a great post for people like me to read. Great job.
Yeah, I think you are right on about the TGC. The particular thing that continues to trouble me is the ideal that the Reformation was the end all to theology and faith. I really wish we could say they had alot of good to give us but its time to build and grow on them not revert to them.
Thanks for the thoughts!!
I see…hmmm…
Speaking of which, doesn’t Tim Keller read this blog? Perhaps he’s too busy directing TGC to go blog surfing, lol.
Darryl,
I think you embody the spirit we need here, to have a serious grace-giving conversation. Otherwise, I fear the future of the church factions itself into retrenchment.
Thanks for coming onto the blog.
[...] Fitch has some reflections and concerns about The Gospel Coalition. I love the Coalition, but I want others to show me if they see blind [...]
What a good, thought-provoking and helpful post. Grace and peace David
David, clear and concise and hopeful as always. The neo-Puritan distinction is helpful. I love the devotional spirit and wisdom of the Puritans, but I don’t buy it all. I do believe we are on to something with the emergence of a renewed anabaptism in this post-Christendom space. Did you know Stuart Murray is coming to Calgary this fall?
[...] is movement among some popular Reformed Christian leaders that is catching a lot of attention. David Fitch summarizes their emphasis in 5 convenient points. [...]
[...] movement among some popular Reformed Christian leaders that is catching a lot of attention. David Fitch summarizes their emphasis in 5 convenient [...]
Question for David:
There are mega-churches in countries that never saw Christendom (e.g. Singapore, going from 2% Christian to maybe 25% in the last generation, and mega-churches are key.) Not only so, but in China even many of urban ‘house churches’ are now into the many hundreds. There is almost no western influence at all–ex-pats aren’t allowed to go. So how does this square with your idea that the mega church only works under Christendom? Or are you saying that the smaller house churches will only work in a post-Christian context, and Singapore etc are pre-Christian?
Tim Keller
Tim,
I have a reflection on this issue, thanks for posing it … I’m in the middle of class prep teaching and meetings all day .. but I’ll chime in on this tonite…
Blessings
Tim,
I wish I knew more about Singapore and China.
I have answered the same question however, in relation to say S. Korea, or Africa or S America. Here I have observed how these nations are either entering the developed world or well into the process of being a developed nation, yet are not on the other side of capitalism/democracy such as United States is and even more so Western Europe. Individualism and modernity are still very much on the rise. The Enlightenment has not hit full stride in these places. To me Christendom melds with modernity to form a cultural coalition that is Christendom in more insidious forms (than say medieval Christendom). This is the Christendom that Yoder, Hauerwas et. al. describe. It is a cultural Christendom much like United States in post WW2 America. It is this kind of Christendom that mega churches work well in: a culture of individualism, together with an accepted Christian authority int the world. The mega churches serve well to call these people into a revival-renewal, personal commitment to what they have already implicitly accepted intellectually but have been unwilling to live. For me … Christendom + individualism (i.e. modernity) = mega church.
One of the sure signs of the later developments of this Christendom is the baptizing of capitalist values (wealth and prosperity) with the gospel. This allignment produces the prosperity gospel. As Peter Berger argued in a Books and Culture article last year, the prosperity gospel is a raging success in many of the “developing nation” venues. It would make sense then that in many of these contexts, the presbyterian contexts of S Korea, and the Roman Catholic contexts of S America, and the colonial Christian contexts of Africa, that mega churches in some places would thrive. For these places are truly Christendom-modernity – the stage that U.S. is in the process of exiting.
Having said all this, China, and to a lesser extent Singapore, mega churches would be puzzling to me. I have only heard of the Chinese house church phenomenon. Wouldn’t large Christian gatherings have to be sanctioned by the Chinese Communist bureaucratic regime? No? I know of the large government sanctioned churches in China, and no one has accused them of being central to the spread of the gospel in China?
In regard to Singapore, I have no immediate response without knowing more. I’d appeal to any readers from Singapore to chime in (I know you’re out there!). According to what I know, Christianity was founded in Singapore about the same time as the founding of the city itself, early 1800′s. The question I would ask is, how much of this conversion is to Christianity or to a prosperity gospel variant? If it’s a prosperity gospel, this smacks to me of Christendom dynamics. Singapore has become a bastion of Asian capitalism, an individualist way of life that would make (in my mind
) mega church organization more appealing. Add to this the appeal of the prosperity gospel and such mega churches, if charismatic (appealing to individual experience) would surely thrive in a capitalist driven social world. Yet would this not be a latent Christendom strategy still? I do not wish to judge the large mega churches in Singapore, but to what extent would they be prosperity gospel?
For these reasons then, I would obviously lean towards understanding the Singapore situation as another case of mega-church Christendom. But I need to know much much more and be humble in my initial suspicions.
Thanks Tim for asking these questions, this at least provokes more study.
[...] link for Fitch’s full [...]
in partial answer of Tim’s question, its been a while since i was in Singapore but the cell-church model that has flavored the larger churches in Singapore is a different animal than the celebrity-centered/big-stage mega churches that rule in USA, despite being of similar size.
The more decentralized churches of Singapore depend less on the big hairy man on the stage and more on the leadership of ordinary lay people who lead the groups during the week.
Good book on the subject, one that i had to buy at seminary, is Keith Hinton’s Growing Churches Singapore Style.
Having lived in Malaysia for three years (Singapore’s neighbor to the north) I think it is fair to say that Singapore is quite seriously a consumer culture after the Western model. It is not Asian in the style of its SE Asia neighbors much like Hong Kong is very different from mainland China.
Oh, one more thing that just came to mind. Something that is different with Singapore and China is that they have not been religious vacuums – Buddhism has left people with a sense of the importance of religion – even if they have not been practicing. I saw in Malaysia a good amount of conversion from Buddhism to Christianity among the Chinese population.
I am not seeking to nor should we Return to the Reformation, but rather to Jesus, the bible, the gospel, the church in Act’s. The Reformation is only going back 500 years, that’s 1500 years short the beginning, the model, the truth.
Dennis,
The notion that we can we return to Jesus by bypassing 2000 years of history is one of things I was hoping to disavow with this post. It’s the heresy that says God quit working in history once the canon was complete.
Peace
To base ones beliefs and understanding of God and church on scripture and Jesus is not heresy, to not do so is. Nor is it saying God quit working in history once the canon was complete, but rather gives one a plum line as God calls it, to rightly divide truth from false teaching.
Dennis and David, I think you both might be missing each other here. I don’t think either of you are proposing heresy. I’m not going to attempt to speak for either of you; instead let me try to fuse the two threads and see if they mesh. Let me know what you think.
The Bible is our source for understanding the character of God and encounter the person of Jesus. We look to Scripture as our authority and plumb line for our lives and beliefs. But in terms of engaging the world, we operate within a specific cultural context, just as the early church did, just as the monastic fathers who sought renewal did, just as the 16th century reformers did…. We cannot turn back the clock and return to the 1st Century while living in the 21st Century. Paul himself said, “I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some” (I Cor 9:22). Earlier in chapter 9, Paul discusses the difference in his way of bringing the Gospel to Jews and Gentiles. He did not ignore the cultural and religious background when sharing the Gospel and neither should we.
What I was suggesting to Dennis is that orthodoxy is worked out in history. For instance, we define orthodoxy via the Nicene delineation “one subtance, three persons,” I don’t believe we Christians can deny the Trinity today and still be orthodox. We define orthodoxy via Chalcedon’s declaration that Jesus was “fully God, fully human.” In each case these statements were controversial at the time, yet they were worked out by the church, in history, under the Lordship of Christ by his Holy Spirit upon careful communal reflection of Scripture. To seek to go back prior … (and in anyway undo this… seek to ignore it) is … in a way .. heresy. It denies the Holy Spirit’s continual work in the church in history. To some extent, I believe, we must honor the same principle in regard to the Reformation.
This was one of my points in the post, and it was why I found Dennis’ comment a misunderstanding of my post and problematic in and of itself. So thanks for pushing the clarification.
DF
Hi,
“Love Singapore” is a network of churches headed by some of the megachurch pastors in Singapore.
The following link is a pdf of an outreach campaign called “100K blessings”. You can look at this link to figure out how much Singapore churches are buying into the tendency towards prosperity gospel.
http://www.lovesingapore.org.sg/100k-englishVIEW.pdf
regards
Edward
Edward,
Thanks. I’d be interested to know how many evangelicals in American life view this presentation(Singapore mega church version you linked to) of the gospel as both orthodox and faithful to Christ and His Mission?
[...] post-battle damage assessment by Internet Monk; (d) David Fitch’s late May contrasting of Neo-Reformed vs. Neo-Anabaptist approaches towards post-Christendom (in anticipation of an upcoming church planting course at Fuller Theological Seminary); and, most [...]
It’s eery just how similar the messages are in South America (Lima, Peru) and this mega-church in Singapore. Singapore is geographically far away from Lima and yet the so-called “prosperity gospel” seems to get manufactured there in practically identical kinds of ways. In my conversations with folks from the global south with regards to this issue, I’ve gotten mixed responses (some affirm it and others don’t). But I’d bet most folks I know here in the States would decry at least parts of this as misleading. And yet, we all (everyone I know personally, that is) brew a big cup of global free market ideology throughout our workdays and as we “consecrate” our homes (with commercials and market images). You could even say we communicate it through our sitting down (or standing up or jumping or whatever) on a Sunday morning to enjoy the worship (though the idolatry isn’t so readily apparent).
I’ve been reading the blog here for a while, so I know this isn’t anything new to most of David’s commenters. But…just thought I’d say it again for posterity’s sake.
Grace to you, David:
I think some of what you see out of TG4 (in regards to doctrine) is in response to the false teachings that have crept into this post-Christendom context (McLaren, Bell, Pagitt, etc.). Certainly, against such attacks the Gospel must be defended I don’t care if you are neo-reformed or not. The soon-to-be-defunct Emergent Village (while currently and noticeably going through a split and publishers refusing to print anything starting with “E” anymore) and their most prolific leaders made some noise and it needed to be combated. (Let me be clear, I can distinguish between emerg-ing and emerg-ent; and I admit I am defining EV by its noisiest spokesmen).
An emphasis that I see in TG4 is what Isaiah 55:11 says, “so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.”
Too many in the “missional movement” (for lack of a better term) abandon the teaching of the Word; or want to reframe it to an absurd extent (even dismissing key doctrine) in the name of post-Christendom acceptance (which is nothing more than knee-jerk pragmatics). I know this because I know church plants and church planting networks that teach such methodologies for success in the name of mission. I appreciated your comment that you realize this tendency.
So the issue you address in number 1 (purify doctrine they will come), I believe, is in response at least somewhat to that way. Our country is pathetically biblically-illiterate and with that comes the acceptance false doctrine. So, maybe the thought is, (in buying your first statement of issue), let’s firm up the doctrine and preach the Word; the people will come (Isa 55:11).
Another tendency of the “emerging” angle that you did not mention, however, is that it seems a lot of times they are motivated more by politics than anything else; and they simply cloak it in spiritual terms. It leaves a bad taste in a lot of people’s mouths (like mine) who truly want to converse as we move forward. The idol worship of all-things-Obama or the neo-liberal theological nostalgia of the 30s (though they call it “new”) blows the cover real quick. I just can’t take these people seriously; and their blind commitment to men worry me.
Recommendation: I think a wonderful common ground is found in “Total Church: A Radical Reshaping Around Gospel and Community” by Tim Chester and Steve Timmis. The book bleeds mission and community while upholding the authority and paramount position of the Word in everything.
What I see in the neo-Reformed crowd is the hunger for the Word and firm theology that has been eroded by the tentacles of false teachers; and I appreciate that. And I also appreciate your recognition that we cannot dismiss the success of TG4 and the men who lead it; for the simple fact of 18-30+ year-olds are eating it up and loving it. Young men are falling in love with the Jesus of the Bible. Praise God! God is glorified through men like Keller, Piper, Chandler, etc.
I appreciate the language of coming together for this missional purpose and I fully support it; even though I know we fall on opposite sides of the Reformed perspective.
His Word will not return void.
Dude,
LOVE the conversation on this post (minus the short ‘heresy interlude’). I appreciated the humble tone you took, Dave, in the post, as well as the comments.
I am becoming more and more convinced that church planting ought to be done, on the model of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, by a two-person team – the scribe (Ezra) and the builder (Nehemiah). I think such shared leadership and differing gifts not only better enables the ministry (in my experience these different skill sets are rarely found in one person though both are necessary), but models at the heart of the plant the community and accountability that needs to be the DNA of the church.
Secondly, I believe that topping or enveloping or over shadowing (pick your own word or come up with your own) the list of leadership virtues (which I think are great) is “laddership” (from John 1:51). Jesus tells Nathanael tha he will “see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.” To the degree that we too share in the gift of this vision and experience of Jesus as the intersection of heaven and earth, to that degree we will be effective leaders. In other words, unless we are first and foremost followers, we cannot be good leaders; and unless we can enable our people to see and experience this vision of Jesus, we will not properly equip our people for their ministries. Our world is asking the same question the Greeks in John 12 said to Philip, “Sir, we wish to see Jesus.” Can we show him to them?
David, I know this post is super-old, but I wanted to chime in. I love TGC, but you raise good points.
I think (& hope) you’re off on #1&2. TGC has a strong ‘theological vision of ministry’ on their website (http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/vision/) that grows out of the awareness that doctrinal statements are not the end-all-be-all (in addition, their doctrinal statement is not Reformed; Arminian individuals and organizations may also affiliated with TGC). Do you think it’s a false dichotomy to pit ‘strict’ theology against missional orientation?
The problem that I see in TGC is that, while they do not exclude non-Reformed people from becoming members, very little (none?) of this is represented in the leadership. I am concerned about the effects of this.
#3 (women pastors) I also think is an issue. TGC’s stance is complementarian, and yet they also claim to represent a ‘broad’ spectrum of evangelicalism. Again, I see mixed signals being sent here, and I don’t say that because I’m egalitarian (I’m not).
#4 (NPP): Just because Piper and Carson have written against NPP doesn’t mean that that is what they’re primarily (or even secondarily) concerned about in TGC. The concerns of TGC are much more than NPP (although certainly include it).
#5: Not sure why you think megachurches are so bad, although I have grown to really love small churches. But have you laid out anywhere more fully your reasoning behind this? I’m not sure if I’m quite buying it yet. It seems to me that the Church needs both big and small churches…
What I appreciate about TGC is the theological vision for ministry, mentioned above, and that they are trying very hard to be multi-ethnic and international. In fact, 23% of the people who have registered on the TGC website are from outside North America. It’s a start, anyway.
The dialogue between Neo-Anabaptists and Neo-Reformed needs to continue; I agree with you. Thanks for your perspective.