Good summary, Tim.

I think there is a lot of value in finding like-minded people, especially at the local level, and working together for the sake of the gospel. If TGC helps facilitate that, and helps to model gospel-centered ministry, that will be a valuable contribution.

Doug -

I don’t think what The Gospel Coalition is doing is contrary to the “Biblical” way you refer to. I find very strong similarities between the work of the early church in Acts and the work of TGC.

Yes the local church is God’s chosen agent of the Gospel in the world. TGC, as I see it, exists to equip and empower the members of the local church body for that mission.

I too, wish every believer took the mission of the local church seriously, and supported the local church with time, talents and tithes. But I also recall that Paul made a missionary journey to collect an offering for the saints at Jerusalem. Cooperation among local churches and believers is both biblical and essential to our collective mission - The Glory of God.

Matt,

You say, “TGC, as I see it, exists to equip and empower the members of the local church body for that mission.” But that is exactly one of the responsibilities of the local church; to teach and equip each believer for the work of the Gospel.

As to cooperation, I did not write about churches not cooperating with each other. In fact. I see that as an absolute necessity, per the paradigm of First Century churches. But this group specifically says that they are not a church.

My point is this, Jesus did not say, “I will build my church, but it will have some deficiencies; so therefore, I will call into existence several thousand other organizations that hopefully can support and equip my church to do a better job!”

Paul makes it pretty clear in Colossians, that since Jesus is the Head of the Church that He is to be recognized as the preeminent One who alone has the absolute right to say how we ought to do church.

Doug,Assuming you’re a leader in the church (Pastor, Elder, teacher, or someone of some influence on others) I ask these questions for you to consider.

Have you attended any conferences to help you? Do you get together with any other leaders for fellowship and encouragement?

I hope you are consistent in your criticism.

That being said, why would it be a bad thing for gospel-saturated ministers to gather together for a good purpose such as those stated in the comments above?

Are Arminians welcome in this coalition? I too am dismayed by empty traditional ritual, theological and moral relativism, and the idols of politicization and consumerism. Yet I do not share the Calvinistic beliefs. Please tell me, would a John Wesley loving smart-alic like me be welcome there?

If you read the Foundation Documents you’ll see that Reformed theology is explicitly laid out and hence it is a requirement for anyone who would be a Council Member or a member of the network (which I’ll explain tomorrow).

Great intro to TGC. Have also enjoyed reading the comments.

Tim, re. your comment:

“If you read the Foundation Documents you’ll see that Reformed theology is explicitly laid out and hence it is a requirement for anyone who would be a Council Member or a member of the network (which I’ll explain tomorrow).”

You may not be entirely correct on that (although I don’t really know exactly what constitutes a “member of the network”, so perhaps I’m barking up the wrong tree). Please see the comment by Nick Parsons on JT’s blog here, and then Ben Peays’ reply here. The implication seems to be that Arminian, gospel-centred churches are welcome in the Gospel Coalition network.

Apologies for the double-post above.

Not sure if the anchors on those blog comments I linked to are working - for convenience, this is the pertinent content from the two posts I was referring to:

Nick Parsons:”This issue is one of particular importance to me. I am a pastor of a church planting team that holds to complementariansim, innerancy, PSA, justification by faith (we reject NT Wright’s redefinition of the gospel) and yet, we are Arminian.

When I first found out about the Gospel Coalition, after being deeply troubled by the slide into liberalism (via many in the emergent crowd as well as liberal theologians), I was overjoyed to find a network of Christians who were evangelistically oriented and yet firmly holding to an orthodox confessional statement. Our church planting organization quickly joined the Gospel Coalition and adopted their theological confession as our publicly held statement of beliefs.

Interestingly though, we have now been removed from the Gospel Coalitions organization list and member map. The only reason I can think of is because of our Arminian beliefs.”

Reply from Ben Peays:”Nick, as Executive Director for The Gospel Coalition, please accept my sincere apology for your disappearance from our Network. We changed servers and lost about 10% of our folks. We are slowly adding them back in as we become aware. We are launching an amazing new interface at the April conference that will replace the current Network. Go ahead and resend me your stuff and I will get you added. Please don’t read too deeply into your mysterious disappearance. Happened to a lot of good folks. We love you guys and are so happy that you are part of this effort to promote Christ and the gospel as the center of your lives and ministry. Press on my friend.”

I don’t see baptism as a secondary issue and I certainly would list it, as such, along side an obvious secondary issue like “end times”.

This makes me suspicious. Is The Gospel Coalition simply another group trying to unite Presbyterians and Baptists?

@Christopher Lake,

I believe baptism has become a primary issue because of the number of denominations that view baptism as salvific.

Here is the first sentence from the TGC preamble, which Tim linked to:

We are a fellowship of evangelical churches deeply committed to renewing our faith in the gospel of Christ and to reforming our ministry practices to conform fully to the Scriptures.

They can’t be together in reforming their ministry practices to conform fully to the Scriptures if they disagree over baptism.

Here is a sentence from the last paragraph:

Our desire is to serve the church we love by inviting all of our brothers and sisters to join us in an effort to renew the contemporary church in the ancient gospel of Christ so that we truly speak and live for him in a way that clearly communicates to our age. We intend to do this through the ordinary means of his grace: prayer, the ministry of the Word, baptism and the Lord’s supper, and the fellowship of the saints.

Baptism is clearly on the table and a part of their purpose statement.

Tim Irvin, you wrote,

Is The Gospel Coalition simply another group trying to unite Presbyterians and Baptists?

Tim Keller is openly unaccountable both to Scripture he knows contradicts him on moves he’s making throughout the PCA, and yes, they are interested to some extent to gain acceptance for paedobaptism; I don’t know this is some pillar or anything of TGC, but it is quite common in the PCA; major theologians among Presbyterians have all but surrendered that Scripture does not support paedobaptism, admitting it is normative and inferential, and that both the NT’s examples and history (to which they all used to appeal) counter them; some self-assuming theologians among Presbyterian groups have surged arrogantly in the gap of old-line paedobaptism attacking all who’d dare deny “covenant children”, and with it are taking down the institutions to which they belong with them, (though among the more moderate Presbyterians those organizations are greatly admired). This is the group that people balk at as crying “oh the great Reformation” and for which Reformed folks like myself actually mock the “oh the great Reformation” cries which should rather be “Oh if we would all mutually submit to Scripture, and thereto look always”.

Christopher Lake, the “baptism is the issue” thinking is a diversion, mode and baptism have never been the truly essential substantial thing at stake, but rather essentials to the gospel itself; the thing the baptism controversy ties into is the nature of the Covenant in Christ’s blood itself, which is for believers only in Scripture, not by necessary their physical seed, (unless, of course, those children are truly regenerated by God); the Presbyterian teachings on these things come directly from the WCF which, on this issue, actually premisses the teaching on assertion that God is earthly-nation building! Presbyterianism’s “fathers”, so to speak, took over when England was made a Republic (which was only temporary) and tried to create and enforce a legal hedgemony that would force all to be presbyterian, but then they got a taste of their own bitter medicine when the Republic was re-subdued and the Anglican Church re-asserted and commenced the persecution of those who dared try doing that.

In recent times, to dodge this denial of evangelical Christianity (that is, the personal depravity of even believers’ children, and their own personal need for Christ just as personally as if they were born of some unbeliever), Presbyterianism (and other Paedobaptist groups, but there are differences) have done a lot of wriggling, even teaching things like “presuming/assuming regeneration” for the children of believers; but in all the wiggling what happens is massive distortion of biblical texts, and when it comes down to it, after they’ve been stripped of these abusive excuses, they begin doing—much a we’re warned about that if we go beyond we may become arrogant against one another—appeals to the Reformation, or sentimental “you’d say that my children aren’t just included” attacks, and etc., to which one must reply, “yes, Jesus indicated their need to in such statements as ‘let the little children come unto me’ (which they wrest and fight over as actually being about paedocommunion and other such junk)”; paedobaptism is very much tied into sacral doctrine, but that itself is also destructive towards the gospel of He who declared not only that His kingdom is not of this world, but that His own are also mere strangers and sojourners in it. When Scripture explicitly and implicitly, early Church history and all its letters, OT exegesis also (which is often twisted to support this stuff), and appeals to sentiments are all robbed of those trying to teach paedobaptism, it often ends in diversions like “isn’t this all secondary issues”, and such. Suddenly all this becomes a minor issue (while in their own words they despise baptists—I’ve learned that thoroughly from otherwise very nice, loving, great Presbyterians; that’s consistent with history too, which was usually much more anathematical to baptists).Suddenly those who’d hold others accountable on other scriptural issues with which they know they are responsible to advocate for and correct, start using the tactics that false teachers and disobedients use even against them to try avoiding accountability. This is heart-wrenching to guys like me because of real WANT to embrace these brothers wholeheartedly and not be confused regarding them because of these continued assertions of what amounts to false and violent teaching, but because of the nature of these things neither can by choice (if one has knowing about the issues enough to recognize the significances invovled), nor are separate just because we choose to be—the untruths involved, being substantial, separates those who recognize them just because, like we just can’t bring ourselves, even if we might try, to mix with it, (and I wouldn’t want to anyway).

As agonizing as this stuff is, those who know better and submit to Scripture (or should) either stand on it, or they rebel. And that is, of course, tragic; but assuming children to be saved as devestating consequences, is hateful, and in regards them is totally anti-evangelical, and strikes at some of Christ’s teachings. It distorts Scripture in ways that cannot be tolerated, re-defines the covenant in His blood (that’s a lot at stake), leads to and comes from sacralism (if kept consistently) within its theological framework, and so on and so forth. That is the reason why it is not a secondary issue. Whenever people are “just” arguing over baptism to them also it’s not something about primary/secondary issues, but rather that “are not Christ’swords clear on this, and can it not be settled by Scripture handled aright? Yea? Then submit or we cannot have fellowship. I mentioned the modern Presbyterians who’ll do things like allowing newcomers to be baptized by immersion (which yet creates firestorms of controversy when that comes up), yet interestingly they’re often infuriated and refuse when their own children demand to actually be baptized, when one takes and shows them by Scripture that it’s a personal command to be obeyed by all believers: that shows it’s not a secondary issue even to them, if they’re self-examining.

Making it very clear, though, one need read only Paul. The argument for generational successionism of regeneration through the seed of believers is in direct confrontation with the explicit teaching of Paul to the contrary, and Jesus, in the gospels according to [insert writer here, here, here, here] that a claim to believers as fathers is not, in fact, a valid one, due to physical parentage: and yet it’s from those Old Testament Scriptures and in that exact leaven that the Presbyterian (and some of the other paedobaptist) doctrines finds its roots. It is this that provoked me into deciding to remain separate from them, that this can be shown to be the explicit teaching that Jesus and His Apostles explicitly denounce repeatedly and teach otherwise.

This is from a believer who’s in agony because I wish greatly I could fellowship with those paedobaptists on a campus I’m at and in my area; my congregation shares a building, in fact, with a Presbyterian congregation, even, and I love them…yet can’t have fellowship with them because these are not minor issues; it’s not that I don’t think many of them won’t be found in heaven, either, but again, these are not minor issues. The seriousness of all this was demonstrated not too long ago when a conference of the PCA revealed one of their ministers had been living secretly in sin, and all the women who had babies and children that were baptized by that man freaked out because they thought maybe those baptisms were invalid; the PCA just took pains to assure them that a minister in sin doesn’t invalidate their sacrament—missing the actual spirit revealed in that. The same kind of Spirit is revealed when one studies puritanism and its knee-jerk, freaked, paranoia about stillborns and births that succumb before baptism, such that some would even go dig-up the corpses and baptize them. Implicit (perhaps because they just don’t disassociate in the mind) in teachings of paedobaptism is a linkage between that ordinance (they call it sacrament—funny the Reformation before princes involved themselves was moving the other way) and salvation, security, whatever; it’s explicitly taught in Lutheranism (while explicitly denying the terms “baptismal regeneration” depending on how historical Lutheranism), while in Presbyterianism it’s explicitly denied…but implicitly evident whenever chance reveals whether it is one way or another in the group. That is grave and fearful. There’s much more this is all significant to, (discernment, examining oneself as well as urging members in such churches to do so, inter alia) that paedobaptism gravely affects and puts ill, but that’s perhaps for a much later time and fuller treatment than someone in need of as much learning and discerning as myself should yet dare to venture into.

:(

John,I think you’re mostly right about reformed eschatology. Most believe in the ‘already/not yet’ principle. That the kingdom is initiated, but not consumated. Most are a-mill, or different types of post-mill. The vast majority are not dispensational, and they are more concerned with what Jesus accomplished in His first coming rather than the specific details of His second. I respect men from pre-post-and a millenial positions and I even respect a few from the dispensational crowd (thinking mainly of J. MacArthur). The important thing is that He is coming back, whether it’s to set up a 1000 year reign or not.

“The Gospel Coalition exists to create a network of like-minded believers who are committed to the gospel and are committed to working with other believers to further the gospel.”

Is that not what the church is suppose to be anyway?

We have way over complicated church as it is. Do we need to add another movement?

If pastor’s would get off their tails and motivate and discipline their congregations and stop letting other pastors and conferences do their work this would not be a problem.

The question that remains unanswered here is this; When Jesus built and tasked His Church, did He also equip it with the necessary essentials to carry out that task? OR, did Jesus fail to see that there would be some deficiencies in His Church, for which it would then be necessary to create some non-church organizations to “support/equip” the church to help them carry out that task?

J.P.H.

You say, “TGC is not an extra-church entity”

But they say, “It seeks to support both churches and denominations but to exist separately from them.

They also say, “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 turn around and 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.”

But is not that what Jesus established His Church to do?

They continue, “Though such networking can happen through traditional means and undoubtedly will continue to happen through traditional means,[Read: the old Biblical model of doing church - (my comments)] 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.”

You speak of the universal nature of the church, but Jesus never charged this with the work of the Gospel. The work of the Gospel was committed to real people, in real locations, for a real task. The problem with the universal idea you speak of is that it has no pastor/elder - no deacons - no congregation - and thus no accountability.

While there were startup moments and transitions in the early days, as you read what the people of that first century understood about the work of the church, it was always in a local context. Paul went out under the authority of the church at Antioch, Peter from the church in Jerusalem and they were accountable to those churches, for they came back and rehearsed for them what God was doing.

Every New Testament church, including those seven in the Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ, were made up of real people, in real places, not invisibles.

I have known a lot of folks who have tried to justify their form of extra-church group by claiming they belong to the universal church - almost all of them express that they do so because they have no use for local churches - interestingly enough, however, guess where they go to try to get funding for their group!

I will say it again, If believers really want the work of the church that Jesus built to prosper, then they should join a New Testament church, roll up their sleeves and use their time, talents, and resources for Him!

Doug-

The only place I find Jesus addressing churches (ekklesia) in the gospels are:

Matthew 16:18, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (ESV)

Mathew 18:17, “If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.” (ESV)

Clearly Paul has instructions for local congregations regarding how they should govern themselves and what role they should play in the lives of their congregants, but none of that seems to preclude the existence of bodies of believers spread across multiple local congregations (e.g. TGC).

I might be more open to the idea that TGC is superfluous, as opposed to being flat-out prohibited.

Thanks for informing those who couldn’t go and might be interested. I thuroughly enjoyed the conference and all the messages. I am, however, discouraged by the people who are against an organization that seeks only to further the Gospel. The criticisms I read here are reaching, and ultimately a misrepresentation of the Coalition.