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.

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?

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 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.

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.

“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

DF

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.