Together for the Gospel: Article 6

Together for the Gospel (T4G) has drafted a document consisting of eighteen affirmations and denials, which they have produced as an attempt to demarcate gospel churches from imposter churches.

Churches and professing believers in Christ who reject any one of the eighteen articles in this document should be regarded as suspicious at best, and false teachers at worst; as far as T4G, their associates and supporters are concerned.

Articles 1-4 wrestle with epistemology and the doctrine of revelation. Articles 5-6 consider the doctrine of God. Christology and soteriology are the subject in articles 7-13. Articles 14-17 deal with ecclesiology. The document concludes with a discussion of eschatology.

Article 6- Affirmation:

We affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is a Christian essential, bearing witness to the ontological reality of the one true God in three divine persons (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) each of the same substance and perfections.

Article 6- Denial:

We deny the claim that the Trinity is not an essential doctrine or that the Trinity can be understood in merely economic or functional categories.    

We will begin where T4G and their adversaries are in full agreement. Jesus of Nazareth was the incarnate Word and Wisdom of God, the image and glory of the invisible God. Those who penned the New Testament were attempting to identify the person and mission of Jesus with the God of Israel (in one way or another). Neither of these declarations are being disputed by anyone that I am aware of.

What are the differences? There are five interrelated items of disagreement: the metaphysics of Nicaea, the relationship of Nicene Christology to the Christology of the New Testament, the contemporary relevance of Nicene metaphysics, Christological diversity (or lack thereof) in the New Testament and how Christological diversity in the New Testament should be interpreted.

Briefly, some important background information. 

The council of Nicaea thought about and spoke of the God of Israel from within a Greek philosophical frame of reference. The Nicene Creed was the result of the council’s efforts to explain the relationship of Jesus to Israel’s God in a way which also answered the dominant philosophical questions and concerns of their own time. As a result of this, an Aristotelian metaphysic of substance was introduced into orthodox thought, which altered the trajectory of Christological discussion that had been sparked within the apostolic church and which continued in the New Testament.

The substance metaphysics of Nicaea had shifted the conversation from an interest in who God was (as in personal identity) to the pursuit of what God was (ontologically speaking). These are very different issues. While it is indeed unfortunate that the church has (in large measure) canonized the metaphysics of Nicaea, we should not immediately fault the church fathers for their appropriation of substance metaphysics. It was perhaps a necessary precondition which enabled them to describe the relationship of Jesus to the God of Israel within their cultural and historical context (not that they were self-consciously aware of what they were doing).

Now, on with the disagreements. First, many people recognize that the questions concerning Jesus’ divine nature, essence and substance, which were supposedly resolved at Nicaea, are not even discussed within the New Testament. Though the authors of the New Testament were most certainly interested in explicating the relationship of Jesus to the God of Israel, they were indifferent to the complications that were generated as a consequence of the metaphysical context of the early, post-apostolic Christological disputes. Thus it is put forward that it is totally possible for someone to reject the metaphysics of Nicaea altogether, and yet still remain a Trinitarian in a New Testament sense.    

This brings us to our second item. It is often argued that the Nicene emphasis on the what (as opposed to the who) of God resulted in the production of a significantly higher Christology than can be found within the pages of the New Testament. In fact, Aristotelian substance metaphysics probably made variation from the Christology of the New Testament inevitable. The canonization of Nicene metaphysics is often regarded as a problem primarily because of the tendency in biblical interpretation to read the high Christology (and thus the metaphysics) of Nicaea into the New Testament, as if it were the theological presupposition of the New Testament, as opposed to the outcome of the Church’s later theological and philosophical reflections upon it (in a very different cultural context).

This leads us to the third item. While the Nicene Creed was perhaps one (if not the most) accurate way for the church to speak about the relationship of Jesus to Israel’s God within the Greek philosophical context of the church fathers, there are people who are persuaded that this is not the only way that the church should talk about this relationship, nor that it is the most suitable way to speak of it in our day.

For the most part, people today are not inclined to think in the philosophical categories which gave structure to the Nicene Creed. Actually, most people (Christian or not) probably have no idea what is meant by terms like divine nature, essence and substance when they are used in the creed. In light of these things, there are Christians who believe that it would be appropriate to find new language (or possibly just return to the New Testament emphasis upon personal identity) that might better communicate the relationship of Jesus to God in our own context. 

Onward to the fourth item. Biblical scholars frequently make the observation that there is an assortment of Christologies (ranging from higher to lower, though none as high as that of Nicaea) in the New Testament. Although every New Testament writing seeks to explain the relationship of Jesus to the God of Israel, they do so in different ways; some books identifying the person and mission of Jesus with God on a much more intimate level than others (i.e. the Revelation has a much higher Christology than Mark’s Gospel).

The fifth and final item has to do with how the church is to interpret the Christological diversity found within the New Testament. Here we once again run into all of the questions regarding hermeneutics that we have met with multiple times in our examination of this document (i.e. should we leave conflicting Christologies in tension, or should we read all of them in the light of one particular Christology?).   

What do you think? Do you agree with T4G’s definition of the gospel church on this point? Why or why not? Does disagreement over this particular issue merit exclusion or separation from other churches and/or believers?

Together for the Gospel: Article 5

Together for the Gospel (T4G) has drafted a document consisting of eighteen affirmations and denials, which they have produced as an attempt to demarcate gospel churches from imposter churches.

Churches and professing believers in Christ who reject any one of the eighteen articles in this document should be regarded as suspicious at best, and false teachers at worst; as far as T4G, their associates and supporters are concerned.

Articles 1-4 wrestle with epistemology and the doctrine of revelation. Articles 5-6 consider the doctrine of God. Christology and soteriology are the subject in articles 7-13. Articles 14-17 deal with ecclesiology. The document concludes with a discussion of eschatology.

Article 5- Affirmation:

We affirm that the bible reveals God to be infinite in all His perfection, and thus truly omniscient, omnipotent, timeless and self-existent. We further affirm that God possesses perfect knowledge of all things, past, present and future, including all human thoughts, acts and decisions.

Article 5- Denial:

We deny that the God of the bible is in any way limited in terms of knowledge or power or any other perfection or attribute, or that God has in any way limited his own perfections.

In this article, we move to T4G’s doctrine of God. It is highly debatable whether the affirmations and denials that appear in this article are the result of exegesis, or rather if they are decisions made prior to exegesis, and therefore a lens through which the scriptures are exegeted. T4G would no doubt argue that the former is true for them.

However, the tenets of classical theism which T4G are so anxious to defend in this article did not originate as a consequence of the exegesis of the Hebrew or Christian scriptures. They developed principally as the result of a combination of the teachings of several classical Greek philosophers. Classical theism found its way into the mainstream of Christian theology through the works of influential Christian thinkers such as Saints Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, both of whom were unabashedly influenced by Greek philosophy; particularly Plato and Aristotle.

This information does not conclusively prove that T4G is incorrect in what they declare within this article. It is possible that Greek philosophy assisted the church by enabling our theologians to see what was actually in the scriptures all along. Still, there are many Christians who are persuaded that this data casts a cloud of suspicion over the conclusions of T4G; and this is understandable.  

What does scripture have to say concerning the classical attributes of God? There are scriptural passages that appear to contradict (or if not contradict, radically subvert the meanings of) certain aspects of classical theism. For example, there are passages that suggest that God is able to change God’s mind and repent. Additionally, the New Testament indicates that God’s power is revealed through weakness, and also that the crucifixion of Jesus was the ultimate victory of God. Furthermore, the incarnation insinuates that God is indeed able to suffer with and is thus affected by creation.

There are many other arguments against classical theism from a biblical point of view, but my concern in this post is not (primarily) to lay them all out before us. Even if I were persuaded that there is no trace of the classical theistic viewpoint within the entire bible, I realize that there are innumerable Christians who have traditionally held to this perspective, as well as large numbers who continue to cling to it in our own day. My objective at this point is not to invalidate classical theism altogether, but rather, to question whether T4G is correct to have drawn the boundaries of the gospel church so as to exclude all Christians who reject all or some of the classical attributes of God.

For argument’s sake, let us assume that there are portions and/or books within the scriptures which teach either a classical theistic version of God, or something similar to it. There are also (unquestionably) parts and/or books of the bible that communicate the opposite. What we have (depending upon one’s preference of language) is a contradiction or perhaps a paradox. What are we to do with these passages?

Should we leave them be, since this paradox could possibly be well beyond our understanding? Would it be better to attempt to reconcile them? If so, what will be our approach to harmonization? Should we rely on the insights of critical scholarship and/or extra-biblical sources, which could provide clarity by informing us of historical, contextual, textual or literary issues? Should we reinterpret one text (or set of texts) in light of the other? How do we decide which text (or set of texts) deserves precedence? What if both texts appear to be relatively clear? If these are all valid options, how do we know which of them to choose and when? What role do theological presuppositions play in our decision-making process with reference to our exegetical conclusions?

What if someone applies a hermeneutic which is for all practical purposes identical to that of T4G, and yet they arrive at the opposite conclusion? Does T4G really want to argue that someone who takes the author of Genesis at his word when he proclaims, “the Lord repented”, or the apostle Paul when he quotes God as saying, “my power is made perfect in weakness”, is not a real Christian? What is their reasoning behind giving preference to bible books and passages which (might) teach something similar to classical theism, rather than those which obviously do not? Are there any necessary ethical implications fixed to a rejection of classical theism that those who do refuse that system of thought are unaware of? Why is it so important for us to draw the boundary line of the church at this point?      

What do you think? Do you agree with T4G’s definition of the gospel church on this point? Why or why not? Does disagreement over this particular issue merit exclusion or separation from other churches and/or believers?

Together for the Gospel: Article 4

Together for the Gospel (T4G) has drafted a document consisting of eighteen affirmations and denials, which they have produced as an attempt to demarcate gospel churches from imposter churches.

Churches and professing believers in Christ who reject any one of the eighteen articles in this document should be regarded as suspicious at best, and false teachers at worst; as far as T4G, their associates and supporters are concerned.

Articles 1-4 wrestle with epistemology and the doctrine of revelation. Articles 5-6 consider the doctrine of God. Christology and soteriology are the subject in articles 7-13. Articles 14-17 deal with ecclesiology. The document concludes with a discussion of eschatology.

Article 4- Affirmation:

We affirm the centrality of expository preaching in the church and the urgent need for a recovery of biblical exposition and the public reading of scripture in worship.

Article 4- Denial:

We deny that God-honoring worship can marginalize or neglect the ministry of the word as manifested through exposition and public reading. We further deny that a church devoid of true biblical preaching can survive as a gospel church.

This is the last of the articles dealing with epistemology and the doctrine of revelation. The primary concern of T4G in this article is that the special, authoritative scriptures be assigned a special, authoritative position in the regular and frequent gathering of the congregation of Christ’s disciples.

The central issue under consideration in this article is in no sense controversial, as has been the case with each of the other articles which we have examined thus far. All three of the major branches of the Christian church, including the very specific Protestant groups whom this document is (likely) chiefly directed against, would concur with T4G that the scriptures should be read from, taught and discussed on a frequent basis within the assembly.  

A second and related issue that T4G and their opponents would certainly agree upon is that there are other things as well, besides hearing and studying the scriptures, which the church should be involved in. These range from public prayer, to the administration of sacraments/ordinances (specifically, though not limited to the Lord’s Supper) to spending time loving one another in practical ways, to communal deeds of charity, to collective acts of justice. 

As far as I can tell, there are two basic areas of disagreement between T4G and their adversaries on this point: the form in which the reading or teaching of scripture should be presented, and the amount of time that should be allotted for the reading and teaching of scripture when the church assembles.

There is much debate regarding the form of biblical teaching. Obviously, T4G is entirely convinced that the long-form, expository lecture/sermon is the most effective and appropriate format for teaching in the church. There are of course groups who are not associated with T4G who would agree with them on this particular issue, however there are others who prefer alternative methods.

Many favor a more participatory model that limits the role of the pastor/teacher in order that the remainder of the Body of Christ might become more involved in the learning process. This can take a variety of shapes. It could resemble a classroom setting, with one person leading the discussion, and others asking questions and/or making observations on occasion. It might also be something of a less-structured dialogue, where enquiries and insights are shared in a much more random fashion.

It should be noted that the scriptures themselves display a variety of teaching methods, including the use of poetry, music, proverb, parable, narrative and drama; and numerous others as well. The scriptures do not appear to single out one particular methodology as universal. To put it another way, there is no style that is presented as the most effective or the only biblical approach to teaching.

As for the second difference, it is clear that T4G believes that when Christians are gathered together, the overwhelming majority of the time should be set aside for the reading and teaching of the scriptures. Again, there are Christians who are not associated with T4G who would concur with them on this point, but there are also many others who would disagree. Why?

Some churches value the sacraments/ordinances more than T4G does. In fact, the reading and teaching of scripture is itself often regarded as a sacrament in a number of traditions. The sacraments/ordinances are similar to the reading and teaching of scripture in that they unveil the Word of God in a special and effective manner; through the re-enactment of God’s promises in Christ. These churches do not want to neglect the ways (besides through the reading and teaching of the scripture) that God has chosen to reveal Godself to humanity.

There are other churches and traditions who perceive that the rationale behind the reading and teaching of the bible is in order that people would be moved into action. These churches believe that hearing the Word alone is not nearly enough. They desire wholeheartedly to be doers, and not merely in their own individual and personal lives, but specifically as a community. They treat the reading and the teaching of the bible as a means to an end, rather than an end in and of itself, and trust that it is their primary duty, as a collective, to reveal God to the world through acts of love, charity, mercy and justice. Thus the reading and the teaching of scripture (according to these folks) should be granted temporal priority only when the church is neglecting its mission. They should never be prioritized over obedience to the church’s mission.  

What do you think? Do you agree with T4G’s definition of the gospel church on this point? Why or why not? Does disagreement over this particular issue merit exclusion or separation from other churches and/or believers?  

Together for the Gospel: Article 3

Together for the Gospel (T4G) has drafted a document consisting of eighteen affirmations and denials, which they have produced as an attempt to demarcate gospel churches from imposter churches.

Churches and professing believers in Christ who reject any one of the eighteen articles in this document should be regarded as suspicious at best, and false teachers at worst; as far as T4G, their associates and supporters are concerned.

Articles 1-4 wrestle with epistemology and the doctrine of revelation. Articles 5-6 consider the doctrine of God. Christology and soteriology are the subject in articles 7-13. Articles 14-17 deal with ecclesiology. The document concludes with a discussion of eschatology.

Article 3- Affirmation

We affirm that truth ever remains a central issue for the church, and that the church must resist the allure of pragmatism and postmodern conceptions of truth as substitutes for obedience to the comprehensive truth claims of scripture.

Article 3- Denial

We deny that truth is merely a product of social construction or that the truth of the gospel can be expressed or grounded in anything less than total confidence in the veracity of the bible, the historicity of biblical events, and the ability of language to convey understandable truth in sentence form. We further deny that the church can establish its ministry on a foundation of pragmatism, current marketing techniques, or contemporary cultural fashions.

There is quite a bit going on in this article. The focus of the article is epistemology; a branch of philosophy which is concerned with the nature and scope of knowledge. This philosophical sphere asks and seeks to answer questions such as: what is knowledge (truth), how do human beings obtain knowledge (truth) and to what extent is it possible for a certain subject or object to be known (truthfully).

Pragmatism is one epistemological approach. It is a consequence based tradition which states (more or less) that the truth of any given concept or theory should be evaluated on the basis of how well it works. Postmodernism is another epistemological approach. This tradition claims (to simplify) that objective truth is much more difficult to acquire than modern-era philosophers and scientists had previously supposed.

Despite what appears to be insinuated by the author’s of this document, neither of these epistemological methodologies are inherently antithetical to the gospel or to the concept of objective truth.

The concerns of the document’s authors in this particular article are once again to secure a special, truthful and authoritative position for the bible within the life of the church. They worry that adherents to pragmatic or postmodern conceptions of truth will utilize these approaches as means by which they can undermine the truth claims and thus the authority of the bible.

Once again, I believe that the overwhelming majority of Christians whom T4G and their allies have directed this article towards (churches that have an appreciation for pragmatism and/or postmodernism) are equally as concerned as T4G to preserve the special, truthful, trustworthy and authoritative standing of scripture in the Christian church. What those churches who value pragmatic and/or postmodern epistemologies have recognized is that pre-modern and modern notions of truth can just as easily be applied in manners which are hostile to the gospel, and which can circumvent the authoritative truth claims of scripture. At heart, all sides perceive themselves to be contending for the faith, therefore this is not something that T4G can claim exclusively for their own epistemological position.

Besides the concurrence between T4G and their opponents regarding the importance of knowing truth and the special, authoritative station of the bible in the revelation of it, there are other areas of agreement which bear significantly upon our current discussion.

First, everyone involved believes that God created everything good, and simultaneously that all things have been affected by sin. This means that everything which exists can potentially be employed in service of God, the good, truth and the gospel, or in service to the devil, evil, the lie and death. 

Second, all parties believe that there are aspects of the scriptures which are true in a universal sense, and other aspects which are true in a particular sense in relation to the specific cultural situations in which each individual book of the bible was written. Particular truths are not necessarily binding outside of their original historical setting (the practices surrounding the Hebrew Temple cult prior to Jesus and head coverings for women in Corinth are good examples of this).

Third, I believe that there is basic agreement that particular truths are the application within a given culture of a person or group of persons’ interpretations of universal truth. In other words, while universal truths are in some sense absolute and unchanging, particular truths are the diverse efforts at bringing universal truth to bear within a specific cultural situation. Particular truths thus vary, not merely across time and culture, but within individual cultures as well (for examples, see the apostle Paul’s damning criticisms of the Temple cult and circumcision, as well as his post-baptismal participation in Temple cult ritual and circumcision of Timothy, and furthermore, examine his handling of disagreements in Rome and Corinth between stronger and weaker brethren).

Fourth, T4G and their opponents all believe that historical context and ancient cultural situations play some sort of role in the process of the interpretation of the scriptures.  

Now we can move on to areas of disagreement. While pragmatic and postmodern epistemologies in the hands of T4G’s Christian adversaries are not a threat to the bible, its truth claims or its authority, they can be perceived as a threat to modern positivistic epistemology (T4G’s basic presupposition) the neo-Puritan tradition of interpretation and thus T4G’s self-proclaimed authority.

The positivist epistemology of T4G and their allies allows them to equate their own interpretive tradition with the authority of the bible. This is why they liken any rejection of their own interpretative tradition with denial of the truth, the scriptures and the gospel. However, we must be clear. The disagreement between T4G and those whom this article is directed against has nothing to do with the authority of the bible. It has to do with the ontology of the bible (what is scripture and what does it mean) and hermeneutics (how do we interpret the bible). Neither of these matters have been settled historically; by any means.

Although there is agreement that the scriptures present both universal and particular truths, disparity exists regarding what in the bible is universally true, and what is particularly true. These are difficult questions that the church must wrestle with if we hope to come to any knowledge of the truth.

Next, while T4G and their adversaries agree that everything within creation can potentially be used for good or evil, there is not always agreement concerning the ways in which creation (i.e. materials, philosophies, actions) should be employed so as to magnify God, the good, the truth and the gospel, and so as not to conflict with or to engender harm upon them. Again, these questions are challenging, and for a number of reasons; not the least of which being the fact that it is practically impossible for creation to be utilized purely for good or purely for evil.

Lastly, although there is harmony with regard to the recognition on all sides of the importance of historical and cultural context to faithful interpretation of scripture, differences become quite evident once we ask the question, how much? In my opinion, it is manifestly obvious that T4G and their supporters are much more dependent upon cultural and historical context than they like to admit (just ask them if they have ever used a lexicon) so in reality, disagreement on this point is not as drastic as it might appear at first glance. Actually, I am persuaded that T4G will not object to historical and ancient cultural insights as long as said insights do not threaten the authority of the neo-Puritan theological tradition. Therefore insistence upon the necessity of historical and cultural contextual insights for faithful interpretation is not really a problem in and of itself. It is only when these insights appear to discredit the truth claims of the neo-Puritan tradition that they become problematic for T4G.                

What do you think? Do you agree with T4G’s definition of the gospel church on this point? Why or why not? Does disagreement over this particular issue merit exclusion or separation from other churches and/or believers?  

Together for the Gospel: Article 2

Together for the Gospel (T4G) has drafted a document consisting of eighteen affirmations and denials, which they have produced as an attempt to demarcate gospel churches from imposter churches.

Churches and professing believers in Christ who reject any one of the eighteen articles in this document should be regarded as suspicious at best, and false teachers at worst; as far as T4G, their associates and supporters are concerned.

Articles 1-4 wrestle with epistemology and the doctrine of revelation. Articles 5-6 consider the doctrine of God. Christology and soteriology are the subject in articles 7-13. Articles 14-17 deal with ecclesiology. The document concludes with a discussion of eschatology.

Article 2- Affirmation:

We affirm that the authority and sufficiency of scripture extends to the entire bible, and therefore that the bible is our final authority for all doctrine and practice.

Article 2- Denial:

We deny that any portion of the bible is to be used in an effort to deny the truthfulness or trustworthiness of any other portion. We further deny any effort to identify a canon within the canon or, for example, to set the words of Jesus against the writings of Paul.

In this second article, T4G is concerned to protect the truthfulness and the trustworthiness of the scriptures. Interestingly, this affirmation is not going to be all that controversial amongst the three major branches of Christianity. The majority of professing Christians would probably agree that the scriptures paint a faithful portrait of God, and that they impart wisdom to the church, so that we might live lives that are well-pleasing to our God and King.

There is also agreement regarding the fact that the scriptures do not instruct the church on every possible matter which might arise in life (i.e. they do not explicate how to repair a car or give us an understanding of the human circulatory system).

Additionally, all parties involved in this discussion, including T4G, recognize that there are times when one portion of scripture disagrees with another. I will offer a few brief examples of this phenomena. First, Jesus overturns many of the Old Testament commands regarding cleanliness and Temple worship. Second, in the dispute which rages on between Calvinists and Arminians, there a number of passages which seem to present divine determinism, while others appear to teach human free-will. Third, open theists and classical theists argue with one another because while there are places in scripture which give the impression that God can repent and have a change of mind, there are others which insinuate that God knows everything in advance. 

Of course, those on the more conservative end of the Christian spectrum (like T4G) would not define any of the above occurrences of disparity as disagreement or contradiction; something which those who are more liberal would be content with. They might be more comfortable with terms such as progressive revelation or paradox or accommodation. My point though is that all sides are aware of the incongruities, regardless of the language one prefers to utilize when speaking of them or how one chooses to deal with them. 

It is precisely at this juncture where we can begin to identify areas of disagreement between T4G and their opponents. How are we to define these apparent discrepancies, and what are we to do with them? Do we reinterpret texts which seem to contradict others so as to reconcile them? If so, which set of texts are we to prioritize; especially if both sets are arguably clear? What if we do reconcile them, but they are not meant to be reconciled; aren’t we in effect creating a canon within the canon (or perhaps a canon without the canon) or even worse, suppressing and/or ignoring the intended message of the reconciled text? Is it possible for the church to locate a unified, solitary message within the scriptures without (intentionally or unintentionally) employing some sort of canon within the canon? Is locating a unified, solitary message of scripture even a desirable end?

These are the kinds of questions which T4G’s adversaries are intent on discussing; not in an endeavor to circumvent the truthfulness, trustworthiness, authority and sufficiency of the bible, but rather, because they desire to uphold these vital attributes. The conflict between T4G and their opponents therefore concerns the nature and meaning of the scriptures (which are truthful and trustworthy) what it means for the scriptures to be authoritative and how that authority functions, and how far sufficiency extends.

What do you think? Do you agree with T4G’s definition of the gospel church on this point? Why or why not? Does disagreement over this particular issue merit exclusion or separation from other churches and/or believers?  

Together for the Gospel: Article 1

Together for the Gospel (T4G) has drafted a document consisting of eighteen affirmations and denials, which they have produced as an attempt to demarcate gospel churches from imposter churches.

Churches and professing believers in Christ who reject any one of the eighteen articles in this document should be regarded as suspicious at best, and false teachers at worst; as far as T4G, their associates and supporters are concerned.

Articles 1-4 wrestle with epistemology and the doctrine of revelation. Articles 5-6 consider the doctrine of God. Christology and soteriology are the subject in articles 7-13. Articles 14-17 deal with ecclesiology. The document concludes with a discussion of eschatology.

Article 1- Affirmation:

We affirm that the sole authority for the church is the bible, verbally inspired, inerrant, infallible and totally sufficient and trustworthy.

Article 1- Denial:

We deny that the bible is a mere witness to the divine revelation, or that any portion of scripture is marked by error or the effects of human sinfulness.

The authors of this document are concerned to protect the traditional place of the scriptures as something distinctive and special in comparison to all of what is referred to as general revelation; which would include the wisdom of non-Christian religions and traditions. This is a respectable and responsible objective in my opinion; one which all three branches of Christianity would support enthusiastically. 

To be sure, of those whom this denial is specifically directed towards, there is not one who would reject the central Christian confession that Jesus Christ is Lord; the Word, the consummate revelation of the one true God. Furthermore, each one would desire to uphold the scriptures as a book that reveals Christ (and thus God) in a unique, and therefore a trustworthy and authoritative manner.

Another area of agreement that is shared between all parties involved is in the belief that the scriptures are a divine/human product. That is to say that all of these concur that while the scriptures were in some sense inspired by God, they were also the product of human beings. During the process of writing, the intellects, styles, cultural situations and immediate concerns of the human authors were not in any way superseded.

One final point that can be agreed upon by both T4G and their opponents which is significant to the current subject is that God is able, willing and determined to utilize fallible, sinful humankind to communicate truth and to accomplish his purposes.

As I see things, there are two matters which are specifically being disputed within this particular article: the relationship between Christ and the scriptures, and the relationship between the divine and human natures of scripture.

Concerning the first subject, T4G and their associates view Christ as more or less equal to or the sum total of the scriptures. Their opponents understand Christ to be above or superior to the scriptures, and the lens through which all scripture must be interpreted. While there is some overlap between the positions of both groups, I believe that this brief summary gets at the crux of the disagreement.

As for the second topic, T4G and those who stand with them place a heavy emphasis upon the divinity of scripture, without explicitly denying the human aspect. On the other side, those whom T4G are directing this article against stress the humanity of scripture, which they do without rejecting divine inspiration.

What do you think? Do you agree with T4G’s definition of the gospel church on this point? Why or why not? Does disagreement over this particular issue merit exclusion or separation from other churches and/or believers?  

Together for the Gospel?

Justin Taylor of Between Two Worlds recently linked to an official statement of affirmations and denials which has been issued by the leaders of the Together for the Gospel conference (T4G). If you are not acquainted with T4G, it is a bi-annual conference which is arranged by Mark Dever, CJ Mahaney, Ligon Duncan and Al Mohler. These conferences showcase lectures and round-table discussions featuring these four men, as well as other well-known pastors, teachers and authors. John Piper, John MacArthur, RC Sproul, Matt Chandler, Josh Harris, Thabiti Anyabwile and Kevin DeYoung are some of the men who have contributed to these conferences in past years.

This statement of beliefs caught my attention primarily because of the urgency of its tone. It is my intention to work through each of the document’s eighteen articles in order (for starters) to better understand the issues as the architects of T4G do. I suppose that the most efficient way to gain an awareness of T4G’s concerns is to present and to work through the introduction to the text (in sections) which is entitled We are Brothers:

We are brothers in Christ united in one great cause: to stand together for the gospel. We are convinced that the gospel of Jesus Christ has been misrepresented, misunderstood and marginalized in many churches and among many who claim the name of Christ. Compromise of the gospel has led to the preaching of false gospels, the seduction of many minds and movements and the weakening of the church’s gospel witness.

As is rather obvious, these folks have some profound and important concerns. It is also apparent that they are rendering some serious accusations against churches and individuals who claim the name of Jesus Christ. They certainly have the right and even the responsibility to earnestly contend for the faith, but this opening declaration raises at least two significant questions in my mind. How do we define the gospel, and what does it mean and/or look like to defend the truth?

As in previous moments of theological and spiritual crisis in the church, we believe that the answer to this confusion and compromise lies in a comprehensive recovery and reaffirmation of the gospel, and in Christians banding together in gospel churches that display God’s glory in this fallen world.

While it is necessary that the church first identify the gospel before we can ever hope to comprehend either the nature or the depth of the crisis which are (supposedly) experiencing at the current time, I agree with the authors that (subsequent to coming to an adequate understanding of all of these issues) the church has a responsibility to band together for the purpose of putting God’s glory on display throughout our fallen world, and that proclamation and teaching will be indispensible tools in the midst of our struggle.   

We are brothers united in a deep concern for the church and the gospel. This concern is specifically addressed to certain trends within the church today. We are concerned about the tendency of so many churches to substitute technique for truth, therapy for theology and management for ministry. We are also concerned that God’s glorious purpose for Christ’s church is often eclipsed by so many other issues, programs, technologies and priorities.

Along with the founders of T4G, I have a deep concern for the gospel and for the church. I concur also that it is possible for the gospel to be subjugated to specific techniques, therapeutic and management methods, as well as for issues, programs, technologies and priorities to be employed in opposition to the purpose of Christ’s church. However, I do not believe that any of these things are inherently or naturally opposed to the gospel or to the church’s purpose. In fact, I am persuaded that each of these can be utilized in accordance with the purpose of the church, and furthermore aid in the spread of the gospel. The question that concerns me, then, is what is it about the ways in which these things are being put into operation that causes them to conflict with the gospel and the church’s purpose? 

Furthermore, confusion over crucial questions concerning the authority of the bible, the meaning of the gospel, and the nature of truth itself have gravely weakened the church in terms of its witness, its work and its identity.

The authors of this document are correct in their assessment of the current situation within Christianity. The questions that they speak of are undeniably critical. To misunderstand them could (potentially) lead to the undermining of the witness, work and identity of the church. It is essential that the church begin to discuss what it means for the scriptures to be authoritative, how to define the gospel and how we are to understand the nature of truth.

We stand together for the gospel, and for a full and gladdening recovery of the gospel in the church. We are convinced that such a recovery will be evident in the form of faithful gospel churches, each bearing witness to the glory of God and the power of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

To this, I say amen! Is this not what Christians from every tradition hope for, trust in and work towards? Not according to T4G and its allies. Indeed, T4G was established in order to wage war against Christians who might profess to agree with a statement such as the one preceding, but who mean something very different when using the language. The Together for the Gospel conferences and this list of affirmations and denials were specifically designed with the intention of helping people to distinguish between the true gospel and those which T4G has deemed false, and additionally, to demarcate gospel churches from those which they consider to be imposters.

In investigating this document, my aim is not so much to criticize T4G for making these types of distinctions (a necessary evil). Instead, I desire to examine the distinctions themselves, in order that we might consider whether or not these particular distinctions possess any validity. I have no doubt that T4G will have much to contribute to the ongoing conversation occurring within the church regarding the questions that have been posed above. Nevertheless, I am not at all convinced that such a tiny segment of the North American church should be granted unqualified and absolute authority to define the gospel or to delineate the borders of the church for all sincere believers throughout all time and across the globe.  

Make no mistake about it, this is exactly what the founders of T4G and their associates are attempting to do. Obviously, those associated with T4G believe that they are representatives of gospel churches which, from their perspective, means that they are entitled to speak authoritatively on these matters. However, when so many Christians from a wide diversity of traditions disagree with their overall analysis, the only responsible thing to do is to call their alleged authority into question. This does not mean that we should crudely brush aside T4G’s contentions as if they are insignificant. What it does mean is that we have the responsibility to scrutinize their conclusions as well as the allegations that they are making.

The Levite is on a Mission!

Stephen the Levite returned today with his second solo project, The Last Missionary. I wasn’t sure whether I liked it all that much after the first time through (something to do with the way that it has been mixed down, and the scratching that appears on a couple of tracks sounds kind of amateurish) but its growing on me the more I listen to it. Show brother Stephen some love and support by purchasing this joint. After you listen, come back and let us know what you think.  

Holding On in the Struggle

I am becoming more and more of a fan of Thi’sl every day. He is not your typical Christian Hip Hop artist. While he does rhyme about Christ and biblical themes, he is not so concerned with instructing his listeners on specifically theological matters, nor does he see the need to treat his songs like expository sermons (as is the practice of many Holy Hip Hop emcees). His approach differs in that he emphasizes the relationship between Christ and the everyday situations and struggles of human beings. It is thus thoroughly Christian, even though it is not churchy. This is the new video from his most recent release, Beautiful Monster. I highly recommend that you check this brother out if you have not already.

Just Listen to Priest

This video was unleashed in March, probably to hold over all of us who are impatiently waiting for Killah Priest to drop his new double album, The Psychic World of Walter Reed; which was postponed yet again. I was hoping to catch a new release date, but that hasn’t happened (maybe that is for the best; they probably would not have met it anyway) which is why it has taken me so long to provide all of you with this video for your viewing pleasure. I finally decided to forget waiting. If I do hear anything regarding when it is coming out, I will post an update (feel free to drop a comment here if any of you hear anything about it). Anyhow, this track is seriously ridiculous. It has actually made me grow even more impatient. Give it a listen and you will understand what I am talking about.