Why I Do Not Join Popular Gospel-Only Organizations, Part One

Inaugurated eschatology need not be associated with amillennialism. Instead, it only requires believing that the spiritual kingdom of heaven, of Jesus Christ, began with the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, first with His apostles and other true disciples and then the church after His death and resurrection. So, limiting it to the millennial realm of Christ has real problems, chiefly the words of Jesus Christ Himself.

In Matthew 3:2, Jesus Christ said “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Why would Christ have said that were it not actually true to the people that He was preaching to in that day and time? How could “at hand” be a reference to a millennial kingdom that was thousands of years in the future, and what would their repentance have to do with such a kingdom that they would never live to see? The same with the Beatitudes: blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Sure, if you’re around during the millennial kingdom. But its relevance to the people that Christ was actually preaching to - and the many Christians that have come after - was what, exactly? Whoever should break these commandments shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven but whoever keeps them shall be called great (Matthew 5:19), your righteousness has to exceed that of the Pharisees to enter the Kingdom (Matthew 5:20), he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11), and “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12). There is also Jesus Christ telling Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world, and also Mark 9:1’s “And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” So if it has certainly not yet been inaugurated, how can the teachings of Jesus Christ i.e. the parables, the sermon on the mount etc. and the other statements concerning the kingdom of heaven be true?

Kevin,

While I’ve appreciated some of the work of the GC from a distance, I’ve never been a part of it’s meetings. Thus far my only interaction with conservative evangelicals has been with men associated with the Shepherd’s Conference. That being said, after reading various articles by men associated with the GC - I would be more than surprised if the GC would ban a brother from fellowship with them simply because of the theological implications you note. A few quick thoughts:

1) Very few dispensationalists that I know of (still living) would say that in no way, shape or form is the Kingdom of God here.

2) I’m fairly sure most would say to some degree the Kingdom of God in the macro sense of the word is here - but in the meditorial sense will not be fulfilled until Jesus rules and reigns from His thrown in Jerusalem.

3) While it’s true the GC is probably more “reformed” than “dispensational” I would again be surprised if they stiff-arm men who believed only NT saints are “united with Christ” from their fellowship….as long as the dispensational brother in question believed that OT saints were also saved by faith alone. I’m pretty sure the GC would be fine with my view of dispensational soteriology. I’ve always believed OT saints were both regenerated and indwelt.

4) What is interesting to me is that there seems to be a great similarity between the “ethos” of the GC and that of the earliest gatherings of the first generation of fundamentalism. If I remember correctly you had a similar kind of diversity while agreeing on the key fundamentals of the faith. I’d be surprised if the GC would add “theologically” to the sina-qua-non of orthodoxy, especially for purposes of koinonia.

5) Still I appreciate theological precision and so if the implications of the GC stated views you note here in fact do shove good men who are more classically dispensational outside of the GC tent, and if the brothers at GC care about that…..then your thoughts here are beneficial. What I’m taking away from your article is that if the GC is really only about Gospel unity and if the implications of their doctrinal statement push certain believers away, then there is an inconsistency at some level. Good catch!

6) My guess is the issues keeping dispensational men from groups like GC most often lie in an unwillingness by the dispensational guys to go to GC than the GC guys from receiving dispensational men. As a matter of fact I’d almost be willing to bet my you that the guys at GC would be far more gracious towards the disagreements here than the dispensational men would be……said by a guy who is far more dispensational in hermeneutics than reformed.

Straight Ahead!

jt

[JobK]

Inaugurated eschatology need not be associated with amillennialism. Instead, it only requires believing that the spiritual kingdom of heaven, of Jesus Christ, began with the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ, first with His apostles and other true disciples and then the church after His death and resurrection. So, limiting it to the millennial realm of Christ has real problems, chiefly the words of Jesus Christ Himself.

In Matthew 3:2, Jesus Christ said “Repent for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Why would Christ have said that were it not actually true to the people that He was preaching to in that day and time? How could “at hand” be a reference to a millennial kingdom that was thousands of years in the future, and what would their repentance have to do with such a kingdom that they would never live to see? The same with the Beatitudes: blessed are the poor for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Sure, if you’re around during the millennial kingdom. But its relevance to the people that Christ was actually preaching to - and the many Christians that have come after - was what, exactly? Whoever should break these commandments shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven but whoever keeps them shall be called great (Matthew 5:19), your righteousness has to exceed that of the Pharisees to enter the Kingdom (Matthew 5:20), he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than John the Baptist (Matthew 11:11), and “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.” (Matthew 11:12). There is also Jesus Christ telling Pilate that his kingdom was not of this world, and also Mark 9:1’s “And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power.” So if it has certainly not yet been inaugurated, how can the teachings of Jesus Christ i.e. the parables, the sermon on the mount etc. and the other statements concerning the kingdom of heaven be true?

You miss the point. This is not a Gospel matter. The point is the Gospel coalition is not firm and permissive in a reasonable way. In essence, it considers dispensational viewpoints unacceptable for participation but looks the other way in matters like theistic evolution. If it is a Reformed, then it should not veil its bias behind the word “Gospel.” Some might argue that this is deceptive.

My guess is the issues keeping dispensational men from groups like GC most often lie in an unwillingness by the dispensational guys to go to GC than the GC guys from receiving dispensational men. As a matter of fact I’d almost be willing to bet my you that the guys at GC would be far more gracious towards the disagreements here than the dispensational men would be……said by a guy who is far more dispensational in hermeneutics than reformed.

Joel, I completely totally and fully disagree with you. If you hang around type “A’s,” you might have a point. But in my experience, this is a disproportionate (dare I say it?) contempt and snobbery toward dispensational viewpoints. Have you read Os Guiness’ book, “Fit Bodies, Fat Minds?” In it, he presents what is often more subtle elsewhere: one is labeled a non-intellectual idiot for being dispensational.

This contempt is not imagined. Don’t know how you can miss it?

Also, the early fundamentalists were very accepting of Arminians. True, they tolerated all sorts of views on creation, but they were much broader than the Gospel coaltion. Why are they even getting into Spirit baptism?

Which is that belief in inaugurated eschatology does not preclude dispensationalism. Their doctrinal statement will exclude some dispensationalists but not all of them, or for that matter even most of them. Oh, how many times upon times have I heard dispensational preachers from many denominations and other various stripes state flat out that you enter the kingdom of heaven or become a citizen in the kingdom of heaven upon reciting the salvation prayer, for example. If there is a problem, it is not with their mild, very much in the evangelical mainstream inaugurated eschatology doctrinal statement, but their allowing theistic evolutionists like Tim Keller to participate. I say keep their inaugurated eschatology statement (for the benefit of those of us who actually apply the Sermon on the Mount, the parables and other teachings of Jesus Christ to ourselves living here and now), kick those who do not believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-2 out, and problem solved.

“If it is a Reformed, then it should not veil its bias behind the word “Gospel.” Some might argue that this is deceptive.”

Well if that is the real issue, then why even talk about dispensationalism? There are more than a few dispensationalists among the Reformed, and there even more non-Reformed who are not dispensational. But even if you are correct, the idea that Reformed people should refrain from using “gospel” to identify themselves is difficult to fathom. Are non-Reformed groups going to also not identify with gospel? Would that be “deceptive” also?

Incidentally, I am not being an apologist for the Gospel Coalition here. It is an organization that I would never join. Instead, I was merely initially bemused at the suggestion that “now and not yet” precludes dispensationalists (when pretty much every dispensational that I have ever known about preaches that doctrine) and then the claim that a Reformed group shouldn’t use the term “gospel” to identify itself to be even more problematic.

Ed,

Hey - because of my limited direct contact with the GC, I might have to concede and conclude you are right. While I didn’t think I was wrong on this - perhaps I am. And if that be the case it’s good to know it. I know I’ve seen the kind of “snobbery” you are talking about towards dispensationalism here and there, but I did not realize it is/was as thick as you say. In my limited contact I find most evangelical men who are not dispensational at least willing to accept brothers even though they might not be as.

Thanks for the push back - helpful.

Joel

Quite frankly, I do not understand the need of a group such as TGC.
One of their stated purposes is:
“TGC exists, at least in part, to create and to foster a network of Christians (and a network of networks of Christians) who are committed to the gospel and are committed to working with other believers to further the gospel.”
But isn’t that the purpose that Jesus gave to the church that He built? Mark 16:15, Acts 1:8
“The Gospel Coalition is the brainchild of D.A. Carson and Tim Keller and they continue to lead it. Beyond these men exists a Council of approximately fifty members who provide leadership, guidance and oversight. These Council members, all men and mostly pastors, are diverse theologically (within the theological foundation of TGC) and racially.”
Diverse theologically?
They say that:
“ Their documents are very consistent with the theology of the Reformation. They are distinctly Calvinistic when it comes to salvation and broad when it comes to secondary issues such as baptism and the end times.”
They also say:
“And in this case we will find that The Gospel Coalition is not a church and that it is not a denomination. It seeks to support both churches and denominations but to exist separately from them. It is wider than denominations even while acknowledging that denominations must continue to exist. It seeks to support the local church without replacing it.”
But then they go on to say:
“Through networking, both online and offline, TGC hopes to find pockets of Christians who are committed to the gospel and to bring them together for that gospel, for missions, to change lives. Though such networking can happen through traditional means and undoubtedly will continue to happen through traditional means, TGC has launched a social media site, The Gospel Coalition Network, that they hope will serve as a means of bringing Christians together based on geography and common interest.”
I don’t quite know what to make of this – when Jesus built and tasked His church, did He not also equip it with all of the necessary essentials to carry out that task? To me, groups like this make it appear that there are deficiencies in the church that require the creation of other organizations to help “support” local churches to overcome those deficiencies.
But then, what do I know!

Thanks, Kevin. A well-researched and written article.

Another side of this issue is to look at both theology and methodology. We have certainly laid out our theological differences and perhaps even incompatibility but the networking purpose statements in these collateral organizations fill a definite need for those who choose to affiliate with them. Perhaps we should identify them as networks. The concept of networking has its roots in both computers and business management/leadership (and marketing) that suggests there is significant value to sharing ideas, collaboration, research and interpersonal relationships. During the early years of SI, the term networking was often used to describe a primary focus of establishing communications, discussing differences and a continuing education resource within Fundamentalism (see Joel T’s ABCD fundamentalist classes). Diversity was considered an asset and not a liability within the confines of the SI doctrinal statement. The opportunity for blogging, article publication, limited joint-projects was an exciting idea in those early days.

TCG and similar organizations use the idea of networking to fill some important needs in the lives of pastors, students, and wannabes to share ideas, concepts, conferences, archives and establish relationships. Unlike SI, this networking is more methodological than theological by choice. The previous question regarding why do we need TGC outside the local church structure could be ask of SI. Networks and networking are important, if not critical, today and can make a significant contribution to the successfulness of a ministry. These methodological benefits are couched within a theological context that tends to be our primary filter for determining the usefulness of networks. Kevin’s excellent article spells out some reasons for not joining the Gospel-type networks with good cause. Unfortunately, we have not develop a methodological equivalent to these networks (SI excepted) to meet some of our needs to share and improve our successes. Before you start throwing rocks at me over this post, think for a minute about the differences between theology and methodology. Both are important.

But not in a happy way.

The Gospel Coalition is very broad in some ways, but exceptionally narrow in others.

Completely agree. But isn’t this precisely the nature of any organizational structure? The same could be said for any number of fundamentalist groups and associations. Not trying to challenge your observation, just wondering about it’s significance as it doesn’t seem a characteristic exclusive to TGC.

Also, by way of note, I was first taught a similar understanding of the “kingdom” by Mark Minnick as an undergrad attending his church in Greenville, SC.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but if our Biblical Theology does not drive our Biblical Methodology then what does drive our methodology?

“To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, according to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.”

btwdik

I think the Gospel coalition has a right to exist, and I think it has a lot of positive points. People like D.A. Carson are amazing; he is undoubtedly the prince of conservative scholars.

I myself am NOT a traditional dispensationalist, but a progressive dispensationalist. I believe that, in a sense, the Kingdom is here (and, in another sense, always has been). An upcoming article on Palm Sunday elaborates my perspective on the Kingdom.

Where I agree with Bauder is that traditional dispensationalists are not welcome, and I have seen this confirmed within other Reformed-types. The Gospel Coalition does not specifically target against dispensationalists, but there is a deep prejudice and dismissal NOT OF PREMILLENNIALISTS but of DISPENSATIONAL premilllennialists in the broader revived Reform movement at large. I think Bauder has simply demonstrated how imbedded and almost subconscious this is.

I have no trouble with the term “Gospel Coalition,” but to suggest that they are united around the Gospel is simply not true. They are a group of diverse believers with Reformed beliefs uniting for the Gospel. And that is fine if they are upfront about it.

There is a lot of “persuasion by assumption” in the Christian world, and a lot of snobbery. I have been guilty of it myself, I am sad to admit. The book, “Accidental Pharisee” tells it like it is (I saw the review here on SI and immediately bought and read it). We have a technique in the Christian world in which we try to get people to our viewpoint by “assuming” a position, perhaps within a doctrinal statement.

JobK, I do not disagree with you about the Kingdom, but Bauder is completely right that many do. That is his point. You need to believe that they do believe this way, absurd or not., They are not heretics because of it, and their belief does not influence the Gospel. But this is the point: to many in this coalition, the Gospel is a code word for their entire perspective, not just the message of salvation. Kind of like the Jews: when they study anything theological — the prophets, the Talmud, ethics, etc., they say they are studying “Torah.” To us, “Torah” means only the five books of Moses. The real crime, IMO, is confiscating the Biblical term “Gospel” and turning it into about everything. It is of the same ilk as transforming the term “music” to “worship.” It takes and narrow term and makes it a broad one.

They are a group of diverse believers with Reformed beliefs uniting for the Gospel. And that is fine if they are upfront about it.

This is it in a nutshell. They are uniting for Gospel proclamation, not uniting around the most basic tenants of the Gospel. The name is a bit problematic in this sense, but I think it’s more problematic to actually believe that any human organization could be devoid of specific emphases. TGC is what it is, and anyone who interacts with it will quickly recognize that it has as many shibboleths as in any other affiliation. But like Ed said, we must all fight the pride and snobbery that naturally happens as we coalesce around theological distinctives. The problem comes when we assume that we don’t have them.

Not tenants!

from your friendly malaprop policeman (self-appointed)