Are We Really Together for the Gospel?
We live in an age of conferences, seminars, and mp3 downloads. Evangelicalism bulges with an excess of venues for pastoral education and encouragement. In the past, the majority of these events focused on new tools or particular programs that a pastor or pastoral staff might implement in their church. And while some of these suggestions were helpful, an awareness of their inability to solve our problems grows [1].
Partly because of this heightened awareness, many evangelicals are experiencing a reformation of sorts. Many pastors and even laity are reading Christian classics, studying biblical languages, rooting themselves in church history, and instructing their congregations in rich theology.
Groups such as The Gospel Coalition (TGC) and Together for the Gospel (T4G) have kindled and fanned this Reformational flame. The men who comprise these groups have a visible, individual zeal for strengthening the Church through a return to biblical ecclesiology. And for that, I am incredibly grateful.
Nevertheless, I have some level of concern about these groups—for instance, in the way they are structured, framed, and operated. What are these concerns? I have at least three.
(1) These Groups Diminish Ecclesiology and Denominational Distinctives
In a recent panel discussion at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, host Russell Moore asked Carl Trueman to identify some of the weaknesses in the “Young, Restless, and Reformed” movement. Trueman answered that they (particularly TGC) diminish certain doctrinal and denominational distinctives [2].
For instance, Trueman focused on the examples of baptism and other ecclesiological aspects. As a paedobaptist Presbyterian, he wholeheartedly disagrees with his credobaptist, Southern Baptist friends on the baptism issue. Similarly, Trueman, and Baptists would disagree on the structure of church government. But these are the very things which go entirely unaddressed at these conferences. They are put aside for the sake of “togetherness.” With Trueman’s deep love and admiration for the Reformation, he does not see these issues as negligible.
Many will disregard this concern for baptism and particularly church government. But we must ask whether avoiding such important doctrines downplays their weightiness. Trueman seems to think so, and I tend to agree. Such issues formed the very heart of the Reformation. So, isn’t it a bit odd when Reformational movements actually minimize their significance?
Let me be more direct: On the one hand, Southern Baptists within TGC and T4G cross ecclesiological and denominational boundaries to unite with Presbyterians and Charismatics on issues of soteriology. Yet, on the other hand, they remain unwilling to cross soteriological boundaries to include the majority of their own denomination in these Gospel-centered movements. Interestingly, one could baptize infants, speak in tongues, receive new revelation, and practice Presbyterian church government, but be included if he affirms at least four points of Calvinism and complementarianism. They solely emphasize Calvinistic soteriology while bracketing out important ecclesiological distinctives.
This somewhat confusing soteriological emphasis leads to my second concern.
(2) These Groups Use the Word Gospel Confusingly
A second problem I see is their use of the word Gospel. Both TGC and T4G use the word in their very names. But what exactly do they mean by it? The Gospel Coalition gives a quite extensive definition of the term [3]. T4G does so in a less direct way with their Affirmations and Denials. Personally, as a Classical/Reformational Arminian, which is distinct from Wesleyan Arminianism, I agree with nearly all of their definitions and affirmations. Yet you will neither find any Classical Arminians speaking at their conferences, nor affiliated with them in any official capacity.
The case is similar with T4G. Their website explains: “Together for the Gospel began as a friendship between four pastors. These friends differed on issues like baptism and the charismatic gifts. But they were committed to standing together for the main thing—the gospel of Jesus Christ [4].” Yet, while these men’s Church tradition’s are diverse, their Calvinistic soteriology is quite similar. And while you will find Calvinist Charismatics, Calvinist Baptists, and Presbyterians at T4G, you will not find any Gospel-centered, Southern Baptist whose soteriology is closer to Arminius’ than Calvin’s.
Why is this? Both groups began in different ways, but seek similar goals—Christ-centered preaching, worship, and ministry in the local church. If the goal then is to unite evangelicals into a coalition that is together for the Gospel, then why are these groups made up solely of Calvinists? Are we together for the Gospel, or simply together for Calvin?
It would be inconceivable that these dear brothers see their metaphysic as the only biblical or historical interpretation of Scripture. As a matter of fact, I know very well that this is not the case for several of them [5]. But if it is not the case, then why do they use word Gospel to refer only to one historical branch of soteriology?
This approach contains inherent dangers. For instance, it equates Calvinism with Gospel. At the very least, it acts as if it is the only historically valid understanding of biblical soteriology. While these faithful men likely do not intend this, it is nevertheless implicit in their doctrinal statements and in their operational patterns.
To them, the Gospel is quite narrow. Yet biblical, historic, orthodox, and even Reformational soteriology is broader and more balanced than these movements represent. This leads to my final concern.
(3) These Groups Have Far Too Narrow a Focus
If these efforts are truly about the Gospel’s furtherance, then their focus is far too narrow. In a recent interview with the Carl F. H. Henry Center for Theological Understanding, Alistair Begg expressed similar concerns. When asked about his involvement with The Gospel Coalition, Begg explained that he had little involvement in its conception or structure, even though he is on the TGC Council and has spoken at the conference [6]. Begg stated, “This Gospel Coalition, at least ostensibly, seems not to appeal in the same degree to those who may not have a sort of Reformed view of things. So, in that respect, it still has a ways to go to really be a coalition that is representative of evangelicalism across the board” [7].
This leads us to the question: Do TGC and T4G really seek to represent “evangelicalism across the board”? I am not suggesting that they reduce their aims to this goal. It is ultimately these groups’ founders and participants’ prerogative to decide who they want to include. They are not required to be some sort of equal opportunity employer, and it would be foolish to imply that they ought to be. The point is this: If they truly are about the Gospel, they must broaden their focus. But, if what they’re hoping is to promote their particular theological strand, they should be very forward and honest about that. Without further clarification, the danger of equating Calvinism with the Gospel will continue to be perceived as a reality.
It is difficult to exaggerate the many marvelous developments that have resulted from these two groups’ efforts. But it is also saddening to think of the impact that could be experienced by the broader Evangelical community if they included them in these movements. There are many conservative, reformational, evangelical Arminians who could greatly benefit this Gospel-centered community.
Conclusion
What then is the solution to this dilemma? Here are a few potential horizons to consider:
(a) Together for the Gospel and The Gospel Coalition could openly state that they see Arminian soteriology as a hindrance to their efforts: If they openly admit this, then it is at least an honest approach that eliminates this misunderstanding of Gospel unity and togetherness for all evangelicals.
(b) Arminians could create counter conferences such as The Arminian Gospel Coalition or Together for the Arminian Gospel: Though this is offered in jest, it serves a rhetorical end. It obviously wouldn’t solve anything. Some sort of counter-movement would have to involve Calvinists and Arminians alike, or we would be back at square one.
(c) T4G and TGC could reevaluate their current approach and seek a more open dialogue with Reformed Arminians and less Calvinistic Baptists: This could offer greater balance to their efforts and vastly broaden their impact upon evangelical churches. However, I do not believe that T4G and TGC want to represent Evangelicalism across the board. And quite frankly, I do not blame them for that. But the fact of the matter is that there are Classical Arminians and other non-Calvinists who are both Complementarian and Gospel-centered. These men make much of Christ and much of His grace through a more Classical Arminian perspective.
No matter what comes from either of these movements, some sort of clarification is needed. If Arminians are included in the future, soteriological discussions should not be off-limits. If they are not included, our dear brothers should honestly consider discussing ecclesiology and baptism because of their great importance. Either way, honest and direct clarification is absolutely necessary. My honest hope is that we truly can unite together for the sake of the Gospel someday very soon.
_______________________________________
[1] Some of this awareness is due to cultural critique of program-driven models of ecclesiology. Another factor is stagnation and weariness due to ever-changing ideas and models.
[2] After attending the T4G conference this year, Carl Trueman altered some of his thoughts about T4G. He explained that he saw it simply as a conference rather than some sort of movement or coalition. You can read that piece here: http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2012/04/t4g-made-me-look-like-a-girlym.php. Accessed May 26, 2012.
[3] That definition can be found here: http://thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/confessional/. Accessed on April 25, 2012.
[4] http://t4g.org/about/. Accessed on April 25, 2012.
[5] Russell Moore appears to be particularly interested bringing about greater unity among Evangelicals. This was clearly shown by his extending an invitation to J. Matthew Pinson to participate in a pre-T4G discussion a the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
[6] Alistair Begg is on the committee for the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals.
[7] http://www.henrycenter.org/media/player_audio.php?id=327. Accessed on April 25, 2012.
May 28, 2012
Congratulations for an excellent article! Such a well written, a well thought-through article shows wisdom and dicernment beyond your years. My heart is greatly encouraged when I read from young men such as you who are so critically minded and committed to Biblical truth. May God continue to bless you as you continue in your studies. Keep up the faith, and keep up the great work you are doing!
May 30, 2012
Wayne,
Thank you for the kind words. I greatly appreciate you stopping by the website. We appreciate your readership and look forward to seeing your comments and interaction here in the future. Let us know if we can be of help to you and your ministry in any way.
June 1, 2012
This is a thought provoking article. I have thought a lot about cross-denominational unification within Evangelicalism and though I think TGC and T4G are good they have seemed rather abstract to me as well. I want to see greater unification and I hope that we can achieve it this side of heaven. Thanks for the article, Jesse.
June 12, 2012
Jim,
Thanks for the comment. We need clarity, honesty, and even honest debate among denominations and differing theological strands. I also hope to see greater unity among Free Will Baptists who are willing to think biblically and converse theologically.
June 11, 2012
Jesse,
I’m not sure if you could have written this at a better time. With all the “hub-bub” in the SBC right now, I think your essay comes at a very distinct time of tension between Arminians and Calvinists. I’m praying that more people will stumble across this.
June 12, 2012
Chris,
It is a bit ironic how timely this piece ended up being. I’m very interested to see how the current SBC issue develops. Historically, they have been successful in resolving these tensions.
June 13, 2012
Chris,
I also have marveled at the timing of this piece in connection with the SBC conflict. We’ve seen this in at least two other instances since the inception of HSF in terms of essay topics/themes speaking to conflicts being experienced among Free Will Baptists, or other ecclesial bodies. I suppose my concern is that people on the ‘outside’ might make the mistake of assuming Arminians like us are excited about this new SBC statement. However, I see 2-3 significant theological departures that would not allow any Free Will Baptists to agree with this statement. I am thinking especially about their take on depravity being so weak, as well as not giving adequate attention to prevenient grace.
JW
March 1, 2013
In the meantime, I will keep waiting for Prevenient Grace Music to be created.
July 3, 2013
Jesse,
Allow me to highlight just two of your outstanding observations: (1) “Are we together for the Gospel, or simply together for Calvin?” (2) “This approach contains inherent dangers. For instance, it equates Calvinism with Gospel.”
As a Non-Calvinist Southern Baptist, I do not feel “at home” among T4G and TGC, precisely for the reasons you name. It feels almost as if these brothers, for all their protestations against denominationalism, are simply redrawing denominational lines, using Calvinism as the wedge issue rather than Credobaptism.
I realize they would disaffirm that T4G and TGC and Acts 29 and whatever else are denominations, but they are at the very least “denomination-like.” They sponsor conferences, form networks, fellowship together, read the same books, give money to support their goals, plant churches, elect officers and work together. Their energy and passion is poured into these groups, perhaps at the expense of their investment in their respective denominations.
Based on your flawless argument, I would not consider it unfair to tag these groups with the nicknames T4C and TCC?
July 21, 2013
Rick,
Thank you for your comment. I can imagine that it is uncomfortable for non-Calvinist Southern Baptists within the SBC as T4G and TGC continue to grow in popularity.
I still affirm that their conferences could potentially weaken, or at least deemphasize, the focus on their respective denominations. I don’t doubt that men such as Russell Moore and Al Mohler love the SBC. I do wonder, however, if these conferences diminish younger attendees’ zeal for denominationalism and denominational distinctives.
It is quite clear that Calvinism and Complementarianism are prerequisites for acceptance within TGC and T4G. (Side note: I am obviously not a Calvinist, but I certainly am a Complementarian.) I simply wish that they would directly state these as prerequisites.
Thanks for stopping by the site!
Jesse
December 8, 2013
Jesse,
As a former Arminian who has become a Calvinist, a graduate of Southern Seminary, a Southern Baptist, a reader of TGC blogs, and attendee of T4G, I think I can address this.
First, T4G and TGC are straightforward about their Calvinism. They are not Together 4 the Gospel in the sense that they are thumbing their nose at non-Calvinists and saying no one else can gather for the gospel. I think that is a misreading of their intentions. I would also say, whether you are a Calvinist or a classical Arminian, you believe the other side has, in some ways, a deficient view of the gospel. Whether a view has historical interpretations on its side is irrelevant. The Catholic view of the gospel had a lot more clear historical interpretation weight on its side in the Reformation, but it was deficient, even to the point of not being a gospel at all in many cases. So it is natural to clarify what we believe to be the most biblical view of the gospel, and Calvinism (to the Calvinist) does that best. We have to narrow down our alliances at some point, whether we narrow it to all that is not heresy, all that is Evangelical, all that is complementarian and Evangelical, or all that is Calvinistic and complementarian. Of course, TGC occasionally includes blogs from outsiders, such as an entry from a Lutheran a few months ago.
Second, it’s not easy to be a Calvinist in the SBC right now. I was turned away from a pastorate for being a Calvinist, even though I clarified every single misconception that is floating around about Calvinism (i.e. that we don’t believe in evangelism). The interim pastor leading the search committee insisted that I believed the opposite of what I said, because the dreaded Calvinist label could be applied to me. Nothing I said mattered because I believed some new fangled, non-traditional, dangerous theological system. This ignores the fact that the SBC was founded as a majority Calvinist denomination (the original Abstract of Principles for Southern Seminary affirmed 4-point Calvinism).
Third, for SBC Calvinists who are being in some ways pushed out of our own convention, we tend to find more friends outside the SBC. For me, baptism is secondary to soteriology. I tell people that I am a paedobaptist one day a week. I have grown up in the SBC and was educated by the SBC, but I find the historical evidence for paedobaptism to be more convincing, even as I cannot make sense of it from Scripture. So I can’t hold this issue with the same closed hand that many of my fellow baptists do.
Fourth, many of these Calvinists are working together with non-Calvinists, but it takes both sides being willing to come together. Lately, there has been an unwillingness from the non-Calvinist side in some quarters (not all by any means). But you will regularly find Mohler with Johnny Hunt, for instance. And even one of the instigators of the online scuffle last year was responsible for helping plant Calvinistic churches.
Fifth, there is a move away from the SBC in my generation. Some of it results from feeling pushed out. Some of it results from frustrations with legalism, acting divisively, bad politics, a lack of diversity in leadership, and failure to engage the culture within the denomination.
At the end of the day, I would much rather get along, even as we differ. I hope and pray we can. But in the meantime, I’m not going to wait around for these issues to be addressed. There is ministry to be done in my local context that can’t wait. I hope this was helpful.
December 9, 2013
Andrew,
Thank you for your comment. You’ve made some helpful points.
I too believe that TGC and T4G are clearly coalitions of Calvinists. My concern was more about what is potentially implied by The Gospel Coaliton and Together for the Gospel (emphasis on the indefinite articles) being made up of only Calvinist Complementarians.
As for deficiency in theological systems, I’m not sure that the word “deficient” is helpful in these conversations. Maybe there’s a better adjective we could use to describe our disagreements on biblical interpretation.
Maybe I have misunderstood you, but I must say that I am a bit confused by these two statements though:
It seems that you afford paedobaptists more grace because you view baptism as a secondary issue. I’m not sure that paedobaptists would separate baptism from soteriology in the way that you do. Also, you’re more generous with paedobaptists because of historical evidence rather than biblical fidelity.
Unfortunately, I’m not extremely familiar with the inner workings of the SBC so I can’t speak to most of those issues. I’m sure that these are difficult times in the SBC for both Calvinists and non-Calvinists due at least somewhat to misunderstandings.
I can say, however, that the contributors to this website (and many others like us) are very interested in working together with Calvinists and non-Calvinists for the sake of the Gospel.
Thanks again for your comments.
Jesse
December 10, 2013
Jesse,
The word deficient simply means lacking the full weight of truth. So it’s a very fitting adjective. From the Calvinistic perspective, a Roman Catholic gospel that cannot affirm sola fidei is extremely deficient to the point of not being a gospel. An egalitarian reading of the gospel is deficient, since it does not recognize and properly deal with the gospel relationship between Christ and the Church, as we see it played out in the marriage relationship. An Arminian gospel is deficient also, but in its own way. For instance, from the Calvinistic perspective, the idea of limited atonement means that Christ’s death actually effected the salvation of the elect. If this is not the case, as Arminians (and others) argue, then we have a gospel where Jesus’ death only made salvation potential, based on our acceptance. Combine that with the removal of irresistible grace, and you have the potential that Jesus’ death might not save anyone at all, which I believe misses a big piece of the beauty of the gospel.
As for paedobaptism, I don’t find credobaptist historical arguments against paedobaptism very plausible. I have a hard time being fully convinced by the biblical arguments for paedobaptism. But I have often wondered if the lack of a sound biblical argument for paedobaptism is a direct result of its antiquity. In other words, the paedobaptist position was never really challenged until the 16th century, so if it was the practice of the early Church, the explanations invented since the 16th century are new arguments that may not be the best understanding of how the early Church would have understood paedobaptism, especially coming out of the framework of Judaism. So I hold baptism with a loose grip, both historically and exegetically.
That’s not to say that I don’t think baptism is connected to salvation. It is. But I don’t see the timing and method of baptism as quite so problematic. And Presbyterians still baptize new believers who haven’t been paedobaptized.
As for issues in the SBC, I am unaware of any offensive shots fired from the Calvinist camp, but the Calvinist camp has received fire. So I could be wrong, but I’m not sure it’s accurate to say that the non-Calvinist side is hurting. TGC and T4G are minority counter-movements, so the fact that they are Calvinistic is not a shot at non-Calvinists, but a minority group under fire seeking refuge with like-minded brothers. But maybe that’s just me.
December 9, 2013
Jesse,
Nice text. Very well said. Having said what you said, I really think that the arminians make the mistake of caring less to questions of soteriology. We don’t have enough debaters. Not just this, there are less resources out there with the arminian view. I myself have been trying to find a site like http://www.covenantseminary.edu/ but with an arminian view, for a long time.
December 9, 2013
Erick,
I agree with you that some Arminians mistakenly downplay soteriology. And you are correct in noting that Arminians do not produce nearly as much written material as Calvinists. We (HSF) are doing our best to change that, but we have a long ways to go.
If you haven’t, I’d encourage you to check out these two books:
Robert Picirilli, Grace, Faith, Free Will
Leroy Forlines, Classical Arminianism
December 10, 2013
Hey Jesse, thanks for tip. Yesterday I ordered Classical Arminianism from Christianbooks,com. I hope it arrives here in Brazil before january, that’s when my vacation starts.
December 22, 2013
Amen! In my opinion these movements are good for promoting a personal gospel focus on attendees, but the downside is that there is a subtle promotion of looking down the nose at Arminians. There really needs to be a gathering or discussion or blog or something where Calvinists and Arminians truly unite for the Gospel. Debate and discussion may be a part of that, but the focus must be where the Bible puts emphasis: That people hear the gospel via preaching and pursue maturity in Christ while we wait for our Savior’s return. The gospel is NOT focused on how people come to Christ as much as it is about them coming to Christ. A conference or coalition for the biblical gospel should focus on this rather than us sitting around arguing points of theology when the bottom line is–get out there and tell people about Jesus; preach and make disciples.