"The conference bookstore takes up as many square feet as the meeting space, and it’s all books!"

But what if we wanted to buy some "Testamints" or a key chain or a Purpose Driven dog leash?!

What then?!

Just books? Hmm. It's so sneaky, it just might work.

from #2: Mark’s warning: There are lots of good things that Christians should do (working for justice, for instance, or practicing hospitality), but they’re not the gospel.

Really? If these are kingdom things, how are they not gospel things? Isn't this a good example of why the answer to the question, "Is our gospel to small?" referring to evangelical, is Yes?

Wow, fantastic.

There's definitely a problem with marketing the truth these days.

What would happen if the gospel was stripped down and merely gossiped about in general society on an interpersonal basis?

Does the truth need to be shouted out on billboards and by branding?

The process of putting the horse back in front of the cart has begun.

"...it’s a mistake to assume that God’s purpose is to do the greatest good for the greatest number, and therefore we should reach as many as we can."

Wow - great job showing the cold, calculated heart of this type of Calvinism. I would want to know what the alternative is - to reach as many as is comfortable? as many as are like me? as many as are smart enough to agree with my systematic theology? If we are not going to reach as many as we can, how many will we attempt to reach?

These conferences of whatever stripe are a big exercises in self-indulgence.

I'm so glad all 5,000 (wow!) of these folk were confirmed in their ignorance and had the good news of their own righteousness communicated to themselves...and then codified by Mr. Dever.

How great.

And the arrogance of it all is somehow so much easier to swallow because those guys are "friends".

How great.

You can still count me in as part of the majority of this generation who are gladly walking away from this brand of Christianity.

Mr. Dever has only confirmed the wisdom of my choice.

Hi Skeptical. I agree with you, I guess. However, when you say you walk away from this brand of Christianity are you merely using the term 'brand' or do you think church branding is at all justified?

I was at T4G too, and I loved the precise thinking and the emphasis on God's glory and sufficiency.

It did strike me as odd how few women were there and how none were part of the program. And the only non-white male on the program was asked to speak on race--isn't THAT special? Can somebody help me with the theology of God's glory that's reflected only in middle aged white men?

This was my first T4G, and the thing that stood out to me was the absence of "bells and whistles" and fancy-schmancy visuals and showy technology and worship leaders calling attention to themselves. The speakers just stood up and spoke--no PowerPoint, no movie clips, just straight truth.

Afterward we worshiped by singing a song with God-centered lyrics, led by one humble but proficient piano player. The focus was on God! Hallelujah!

Thanks for this report. The speaker that got to me was R.C. Sproul, who talked about "The Curse Motif in the Atonement."

He talked about how all of creation is under the curse because of sin. And how every human being is in rebellion against God and deserves damnation.

He said that the United States likes to say "God bless America" but the more accurate and overlooked truth is that "God will judge America"--and he wasn't smiling when he said that.

What's the difference in saying "God judge America" and a preacher saying that because of the nation's sins, "God damn America"?

Would anyone ever say something like that? Sounds like R.C. Sproul would agree.

Philip,

If I read your comment accurately, you write that R.C. Sproul indicates that "God WILL judge America" and in the next paragraph you change the phrase to "God judge America". The first is a statement of what God has said he will do. The second is what you are asking God to do - big difference! Judgement doesn't necessarily imply damnation does it?

If the unmentioned Rev. Wright asks God to damn America, how is that different from Pat Robertson calling hurricane Katrina God's judgement? Are they on the same page? Also, do you think Rev. Wright thinks Katrina was God's judgement on New Orleans? Hmm....

I'm almost speechless. These folks have developed a systematic idealogy and found places to read it into Scripture. To say that N.T. Wright is wrong to claim the gospel has public implications is, well... so misguided as to be astonishing. There are so many ways that this kind of thinking goes off-course that its hard to know where to begin...seriously.

But to begin somewhere, try and see that much of what Jesus spoke about, in terms of judgment and future prophecy, had everything to do with God's judgment of the thoroughly corupt temple/priesthood. Many people anachronistically assume too much here because they don't realize that much of what Jesus was predicting has ALREADY happened.

But, alas, that's just a start...

If you're someone inside this bubble, please, take the time to step away from some of monospeak and research the NT in context- hear the narrative with the ears of a 1st century Jew. If you begin there, I promise you, you will land a long way from Reformed.

To begin your journey I would highly recommend N.T. Wright's exhaustive trilogy Christian Origins and the Question of God- including "The New Testament and the People of God", "Jesus and the Victory of God", and "the Resurrection of the Son of God".

Read those, immerse yourself in the orginal context, and come back and tell me that N.T. Wright is shouting up the wrong tree.

I don't understand - we shouldn't make the gospel either public or personal, easy or with obligations? Perhaps the time and money spent critiquing what the gospel is not could be redirected towards demonstrating what it is by telling the good news and (if this is to be believable), showing good works.

I agree that we ought not try to expand the centrality of the cross as the good news. It does seem that RC and Mark both expanded it to mean that God would judge America. Where is that in the gospel?

That point, like loving our neighbor and helping the poor, is a mandate for those who have received the good news but not a part of the gospel message.

I do not think it wrong to say that there is a Christian world view but one does not have to adopt such a view to receive the good news. Does Colson say it is part of the gospel? I do not think so.

I just returned from the conference and was very encouraged by the depth of teaching both in terms of doctrine (Dever, MacArthur, etc.) and pastoral encouragement (Piper, Mahaney). And that bookstore! It actually made me mad to walk through it because it reminded me of how many great books there are and how short my life is! Grrrr....

For the skeptical who are glad to "walk away from this brand of Christianity," it saddens me that you would divorce yourself from men who are vigorously fighting for doctrines like the substitutionary atonement and whose passion is for the glory of God to be magnified in the world. If not this brand, then what brand of Christianity are you after?

my gracious, is this a softball post or what?... so many things to comment on:

there are XVIII Articles in their doctrinal statement...

did anyone else read this and hear in the back of their mind arlo guthrie in alice's restaurant: "this-piece-of-paper's-got-47-words-37-sentences-58-words-we-wanna-know-details-of-the-crime-time-of-the-crime ... ", and talked for forty-five minutes and nobody understood a word that he said...

...odd how few women were there... the theology of God's glory that's reflected only in middle aged white men... an engaging mixture, at least for the left-brained...

these quotes summed it up perfectly: this theology is completely void of any relational aspect of the faith. it is a mars world of guys who would have made great software engineers who have taken a book and made it God.

i mean, to express concern that the gospel is being made "public... larger... relevant... personal... kinder...," and then to be almost giddy in saying that "God’s purpose involves ... the damnation of sinners for his own glory," makes one realize what this conference should really have been called: TFOG ... together for OUR gospel.

and while it's true that all these leave-it-to-beaver guys will be in heaven, it will be in compounds behind large walls, and the rest of us will just have to keep quiet around them so they can continue to believe they're the only ones there...

one final note: there was a sideline meeting there called "the band of bloggers" that i registered for and paid to attend. after my name was listed for a couple of days on the list of attendees, they refunded my money and told me not to come. i told them i had no intention of being disruptive. they would not even give me the courtesy of a return email.

to me, this speaks much more loudly than does any "roomful of books" by guys living or dead...

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

We're not talking about different brands of Christianity. We're talking about the truth of God's Word vs. brands of false teaching. The true Church vs. an imposter. If you are relying on N. T. Wright, you're lost.

Rob B.

Brand of Christianity?

The brand that encourages people to say things like the last comment:

That if you read and take seriously the scholarship of N.T. Wright, "you're lost".

Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot. The atoning work of Christ applied to my life is apparently only genuine if I agree with the articulations of Dever, Piper, et. al. and am consciously against the scholarship of N.T. Wright.

You can have it.

I have to admit as I read the article I found myself giving some hearty "amens" (aloud, no less, which is another issue...). By the end of the article I felt something welling up inside that I haven't felt in quite some time, and something I really love to feel...in the moment I call it righteousness, but later I realize it is more "right-ness".

Oh, how I love to be in a room full of folks who say "we have it right, and they have it wrong!" Oh, how it feeds my soul to know how right I am and how all those who don't agree with me can go to hell. It's so freeing! But this gospel...well, it preaches great in a room full of know-it-alls, but in the quite dark places, before a holy G_d...it doesn't seem righteous at all. G_d forgive me....

When it comes to attitudes, one should be careful not to be guilty of the pot calling the kettle black. Speak the truth, but let's do so in love regardless of where your feelings fall about T4G or reformed theology.

Having listened to Dever's message, I think he provided good warnings to us to, in essence, "keep the main thing the main thing" when it comes to the gospel. The gospel is not about "taking America back for God" or attacking various social ills. Implications perhaps, but not the gospel itself. Since we are all prone to muddy the waters (yes, even Reformed believers can do it, hence the message to us), it served as a good reminder to keep the gospel message centered on the simple message of faith in Christ crucified. If you haven't listened to his message, I'd encourage you to do so before posting a critique of it.

Finally, doctrine is important (and thus the comments and criticisms of N.T. Wright) and I think fairly he has been taken to task. If you want to defend his position, please do so, but let's not resort to ad hominum attacks on fellow believers. Verbal sin is no more pleasing to God than doctrinal error.

Rob B.

thanks for the word about ad hominems.
But that would apply to the person who attacked people who take Wright seriously as being "lost".

Your comment should have read:
Finally, doctrine is important (and thus the comments and criticisms of N.T. Wright) and I think fairly he has been taken to task. If you want to critique those who agree with him, please do so, but let's not resort to ad hominum attacks on fellow believers. Verbal sin is no more pleasing to God than doctrinal error.

As far as Wright goes...he's interesting. But I don't have a need to defend him.

I do clearly have a need to defend myself from people who think my reading him somehow makes me "lost".

Excuse me if I bristle.

Sheeesh...and some of you people say you're the ones "defending the gospel".

Rob,

Fair enough. Along those lines, I am really interested to see you justify your comment: "I think he (N.T. Wright) has been taken to task". How so? In what way has he been taken to task?

And please use the Bible, and not an external interpretive grid, to demonstrate your points. Otherwise its all just circular reasoning, isn't it?

Kind of like the entire T4G conference.

So what is the gospel (good news)? For Dever and others its part of a systematic theology, but is there any place where Jesus presents the type of theological good news that Dever promotes. Perhaps we need to go to Paul for that, if so where do we go to find this good news that is neither too big, too public, too personal, too kind or too relevant?
Theology is always done in context, it is never in isolation. Even the best exegesis cannot avoid eisegesis. We don't need reformed conferences and emerging conferences, what we need is dialogue across party lines to develop strong biblical theology for the postmodern world in which we are living.

Skeptical,

You wrote: "But that would apply to the person who attacked people who take Wright seriously as being "lost"."

Yes, I was including that remark in my comment as well. While I wouldn't agree with Wright's position, I don't know him personally and would not want to go so far as to say he was lost. I don't think dropping that kind of label helps the discussion in any way. If I had a nickel for every theological error I've made in my life...well, I'd have a heck of a lot of nickels (and I'm probably even earning some right now!)

And Darren, my point was only to say that Wright's view has been critiqued by Piper and others. Perhaps my wording that he was "taken to task" implied more than I intended. My apologies if it came across in a negative manner. That was not my intention.

For me, I am just saddened by how believers can be so harsh with each other, especially when it comes to Calvinism and Arminianism debates. Our doctrinal differences are real, but I would certainly include those who emphasized man's free will as fellow brothers and sisters in Christ. They might be wrong on many points (as they would no doubt think the same of me), but I don't believe one is not saved as a result of whatever side of the fence you end up on. Let's talk about these things with kindness, helping others as iron sharpening iron and not as iron being plunged into our brother's flesh!

You call my comment an attack? It's a warning. The same warning I would give to any lost soul.

It's important to remember that this movement of people (be they middle aged men or others) to define the gospel is a much needed reaction to what has happened in the Christian culture of the U.S. I know from experience that an extreme zeal for "biblical theology" can lead to pride and thinking one "knows it all." However, God may be using these leaders (weak and sinful as they are) to clarify what has been confused. The question "What is the gospel?" needs to be asked when the majority of Americans believe themselves "saved" and yet do not understand the relevance of the cross. Many have a vague notion that "if I get back to church at some point and live a relatively good life, then of course I'll go to heaven." I'm not condemning these people. Because I do want them to know Christ and the grace He offers them in His finished work, I want the gospel to be defined biblically (considering the whole counsel of God) and preached rightly. However, as this happens it will be no surprise to me if many get angry because the cross of Christ is an offense, a stumbling block, and foolishness to the world. When we are ashamed of it, hiding the offense, people see Jesus as a "good moral teacher" who was sadly martyred but is weakly knocking at the door of your heart, just hoping you might let Him in so that you can have your "best life now." I live in a theologically divided household. Although I disagree with my family members, I do my best to love and serve them with gentleness, and they me. This dialogue will not glorify God or edify believers unless we can put our anger on the back-burner.

Richard,

Sir, you are lost in your declarations of lostness. Several posts ago you said global warming was a myth and that N.T. Wright preaches a "New Age Gospel". I asked then and I'll ask again now, do you expect anyone to take you seriously? And by that I mean, besides your little clan of thinkalikes.

During this series you mentioned that there is only one brand of Christianity- and the rest is false. How big a rock did you have to climb under to draw that conclusion? The world is made up of billions of people who hold to Christian faith. Your little sect is one tiny fraction of one tiny fraction of one tiny fraction of that. Do you really expect us to believe that you and your kind have found the one and only Truth and that every other Christian believer is chasing after a false god? Seriously?

You come across like the Archie Bunker of fundamentalist Christianity.

"God’s purpose involves both the salvation of sinners and the damnation of sinners for his own glory"

What sort of God needs to damn people for his own glory? I think they are confusing God with Nero or a twisted comic book villian.

This type of "reformed" theology seems to be a clever way to say you follow Jesus, yet still vote for people who will cut your own taxes, drive a hummer, and excuse you from making the Gospel real in the world. It seems like a way to bolster your pride and seperate your religion from the demands it places on your life to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly.

Interesting, Mr. Shelley must not have covered the whole bookstore. I picked up the newest Sovereign Grace cd while I was there. Also, there was some training material there also and a few dvds.
On another note, I knew Dever's sermon was going to be controversial, but his comments hit home to me as I have been guilty of each of those warnings he gave at one time or another.

As much as I appreciate Dever wanting to protect the gospel, in his warnings about making the gospel public and making the gospel larger, how does he deal with James and his admonition that "Faith without works is dead?" Yes, I even hold to the doctrines of grace, but also see Scripture describing repentance and belief as inextricably linked together. In the process of trying to protect the gospel, is he compartmentalizing the two (repentance and belief) by stating that there is the gospel and there is the implications of the gospel? His comment about pre-civil war "Christian" Southerners "sharing the gospel with us" really concerned me. Can he really assume that these Southerners were true believers when there may not have any evidence of true repentance? Isn't there just as much of a danger of his version of the gospel leading to an unbiblical truncated, pietist version of the gospel?

Hopefully these questions will get us back into a more helpful discussion rather broad-brushed assumptions about people's political views and social/economic views because they hold to a particular reformed way of thinking.

Hey guys. I am in South Africa so we're always a few steps behind the states.

Is there any warning you would like to give us before Emergent/Emerging fully blooms over here?

Peace out Napoleon.

"...but, interestingly, traditional Reformed emphases of infant baptism, the covenant, and presbyterian polity were missing."

Uh,well, duh! Wouldn't talk about baptizing babies and elder-led churches potentially have made things a little uncomfortable between Dr. Mohler and his employer? Baptists historically have taken dim views on both (although some are re-thinking the second one).

Having actually attended the conference (apparently unlike many who have been blasting away here at Reformed theology and the T4G folks), I found Dever's talk to be the one I disagreed with the most. Several of us met over lunch to discuss and critique it -- as we did every talk given at the conference.

Three points of clarification: First of all, what Dever actually said is that justice, social concern, etc. are not part of the gospel. They are implications of the gospel. They are even important implications of the gospel. But they are not the gospel. If you are going to critique someone, critique him for what he said, not what you wanted him to say so you could critique him.

Second, it is hardly the case that those at the conference do not see a relational component to the faith. This is simultaneously a slanderous accusation and an easily deflected charge. Listen to the talks given by Thabiti Anyabwile and CJ Mahaney.

Third, this movement is hardly reserved for middle-aged, middle-class men. Attendance at T4G was dominated by those in their 20s, 30s, and 40s (I'm 34 -- does that make me middle-aged?). CT has itself noted the movement toward Reformed theology by many in the next generation. My wife attended the conference with me.

Many are those who disagree with Reformed theology and T4G. That's reality. But please, if you are going to offer a critique, then know what you are critiquing and do not offer up straw men.

Your comment about presbyterian polity is interesting. This group focuses only on soteriology, specifically justification. They don't really talk sanctification. They don't talk ecclesiology--does "church" mean anything other than "my local congregation"? They don't get into that.

Theirs is a very narrow agenda. They say they're "together for THE GOSPEL," but to them, GOSPEL equals "theology of justification."

Or am I missing something ...

Those who criticize T4G and Dr. Dever's talk based on Mr. Shelley's article need to listen to the preaching. Your life will be changed. Mark's point is simply don't water down or add to the Gospel because it is the power of God to save. It isn't loving to tell people anything less than Jesus' death on the cross is the only way to have a relationship with God. The four friends at T4G differ theologically on many issues, however they are united in wanting to see God greatly glorified by keeping the Gospel central. (And you all should know that these men are consumate evangelizers who take every opportunity to share the Gospel clearly, boldly and joyfully with others. They love people well!) I praise God for them and their excellent teaching.

To reply to those commenting on the few number of women attending: this is the first year the conference was even open to women to attend, which they did because they had such a demand for attendance from women (just like the annual Shepherd's Conference, women couldn't attend the 2006 conference). However, the conference is still aimed primarily at pastors -- and women aren't to be pastors. Hence, the vast majority in attendance were men.

Next month's conference, New Attitude, which has a similarly doctrinally heavy approach (but aimed at young people) is very well attended by both men and women (and the speakers are mostly the same -- Mahaney, Piper, Dever, and Mohler will be speaking, as will Joshua Harris and Eric Simmons), so the criticism of a conference *aimed at pastors* for having few women in attendance is the result of a failure to grasp the primary audience of T4G.

I would also point out that three out of the four T4Gers are, in fact, Baptists, so why on earth would the conference go into *Presbyterian* polity (only Ligon Duncan is PCA)? And why would they do so in a conference dedicated to the Gospel? Such things are *secondary* issues -- the conference heads are interested in *primary* issues.

Sorry, gang, you lost me with the participation of Al Mohler. Don't know the rest, but this man will have to answer for the destruction and character assassination he has participated in as a primary functionary and party to the Fundamentalist Jihad of the Southern Baptist Convention. I suspect, however, that this conference, like all strivings of the current SBC, are so much chasing after the wind and are a part of an ever-diminishing and ever posturing of an inconsequential religious shell. The world doesn't care -- and their "gospel" is hollow. I don't understand why Christianity Today/Leadership Journal gives this man and his cronies a voice.

Oh where to begin. I think Shelley’s post is fairly accurate, yet his bias is quite clear and I agree with the previous commenter that those criticizing the messages should listen to them first. I went to the conference and I loved it.

Someone asked why there were not more women there? Because this was a conference for pastors and the sessions were directed to pastors.

Others have lambasted Mark Dever for saying that the gospel does not have public implications. He actually does not say that. He does say that we must not confuse the Gospel with its public implications. The two are related and yet not synonymous.

Indeed God’s purpose is not to do the greatest good for the greatest number. God’s purpose is His glory displayed both through His gracious salvation and just reprobation. This is clear within the text of Scripture. Does this mean that we do not proclaim the gospel with boldness and passion, certainly not! Rather this provides fervor and hope for gospel proclamation that God will, through the faithful preaching of the gospel, call individuals to Himself.

Jarrod,
One of the speakers actually talked about why justification is the central theme of the Gospel; a point made my numerous works on theology as well. Furthermore, the entire premise of the conference is that while they have different views on ecclesiology, eschatology, and a number of other things they can still be together for the gospel; that is why they did not discuss those other issues.

I am not going to involve myself in the discussion here, but I would simply encourage all the participants to pursue grace in their communication. Yes, the Gospel is fundamental and we should never lose our commitment to that, or compromise it. Yet, we should HUMBLY be committed to that and speak graciously and lovingly - even in correction and disagreement. Ecumenicists argue that those in disagreement are breaking Christ's command to love one another. I encourage you, friends, to disagree in graciousness and love, looking to edify your brother rather than being right in your own mind.

In the Shadow of the Cross,

David Ketter

It would seem to me that Marshall Shelly gave an accurate desciption of what happened at the conference. Thank you for that.

What I hear from many of the bloggers is anger, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations of what was said at T4G.

I am by no means a pacifist. I love to debate, but it would seem that name calling and sarcasm doesn't help the situation, but only weakens arguments. Just thought I would encourage and edify you a little.

I am encouraged by this blog! I would only seek to encourage all of the bloggers to never let this topic detour you from our biblical mandate to share the Gospel however Small or Large you think it needs to be. I would consider myself (In a loose sense of the word, because I hate the term "reformed") reformed in my theology I would never however call myself a calvinist there are too many negative connotations with the term plus If I felt that these doctrines where unique to Calvin I wouldn't give them a second thought but I find a biblical presidence for the sovereignty of God. I do have issues justifying God's sovereignty and man's responsibility but I also find in The Word a Biblical mandate for both.

I was at the T4G conference this year and I felt that there were times in the conference where there was genuine worship and other times when it was superficial but I have never been to a perfect service or conference. The men who spoke never did so in a proud or boastful way and I appreciated the humility with which they preached.

Did I agree with everything at the conference? Absolutely not, but what it did was challenge me to dive farther into study to seek out the truth.

I would challenge others to do the same but never getting so caught up in scholasticism that we forget our purpose (Matthew 28:19-20)

With prayer and attempted humility,
Dustin

For all of you all that think Mark Dever was closing the gospel to some (or many) or those of you all that don't like this brand of Christianity, listen to the speeches/sermons on T4G.org and the panel discussions are available by link at soveriegn grace minstries website. Carefully listen to Dever explain the difference between the Gospel and its outworkings. If you want to see the differences, just see what has happened to many denoms that got into the social gospel and now Christ's is no longer intelligible in their life or teaching. The short notes taken by this blogger (I am sure by his own admission) did not do justice to even just that one talk.
Thabiti was actually on Dever's staff for years. No intentional racism here, asking him there was a first step to alleviating that problem. As for ladies, it is a conference for pastors of groups who do not believe in women being elder/pastors via the Pastoral Epistles. However in 2010 I will attend most likely with my Reformed wife.
In Christ Alone,
Greg

So if I disagree with these guys, it must be because I wasn't listening carefully?