"...sola scriptura (Scripture alone) and sola fide (faith alone), which in their time called people to renewed purity and personal commitment to the gospel. Today, however, those same impulses, aligned with the Enlightenment, have given birth to a modernist individualism, Christian relativism, Cartesian rationalism, and experientialism that have become modernity, protestant liberalism, and the current manifestations of evangelicalism that TGC appears to be critical of. "

Actually, it is a rebellion AGAINST sola scriptura and sola fide that has brought on the supposed ills of the Enlightenment. Just as with the corrupt Roman Catholicism of the 16th century and the corrupt Protestants of the 1920's we now have corrupt evangelicalism which is nothing more than man exercising his own wisdom and thinking he can choose his own way to God. When we get away from the Bible as being our only source of truth, where can we then trust in anything to give us truth? Which man do we choose to follow? Today we each have a copy of the Bible in our hands. This was not true in the 16th century. As individuals, we have no excuse to be ignorant to what is in there, yet it seems that even many in 'ministy' are grossly so.

If the Gospel Coalition is irrelevant to the spreading of the Gospel (however you define gospel) and you find that their doctrine will cause them to shrink into oblivion, then one strains to understand why you would even bother to write about it.

sigh... another sad example of a group of Christians being divisive and arrogant enough to believe they have a corner on truth because their interpretation of Scripture is the only correct one. The only people these types of "coalitions" help is those who are a part of it. All it does it push away and alienate those who do not follow the party line.

But I guess for the reformed thats ok because God must not had predestined them! :)

This article was a terrible critique.

1) "If we purify our doctrine, the rest will follow."

No...but if you want the "rest" to follow, you need to put first things first. Doctrinal purity is emphatically NOT about attaining a high stature in knowledge...its about seeking to know God fully as he has revealed himself TRHOUGH the scriptures. So doctrinal purity is the necessary, but not sufficient, precursor to knowing God.

2) "We must return to the Reformation."

Your assertions in the section are so vague and yet sweeping as to be utterly meaningless. Did really just accredit most (if not all) the ills of western christianity to commitment to the bible and a desire find sufficiency in Christ alone? How to you justify your sweeping statements?

3) "Women cannot be pastors."

What basis do you have for ascribing errancy to the particular texts that you do? Why just those texts? Do you have any strong academic reason to only distrust those particular, isolated texts and not the rest of the books? Why not ones that deal with the divinity of Christ?

You could argue your point with other, better reasoning...but really, you settle for just discrediting texts? Which texts affirm female eldership? Argue FOR those...or don't and just say that you and your politics stand above the bible. But you're not going to convince me that the gospel spreads through either an egalitarian or complimentarian politic.

4) "The new perspective is our enemy."

I'm no expert in the new perspective. But I see no disconnect between justification of the individual through Christ and the needp to bear fruit in keeping with the Gospel. New/Old perspective...whatever. Bottom line, if Christ's grace in my life is ineffective, then I would need to question the reality of Christ's grace in my life (a la sheep/goats and James where faith without works is dead). First faith, then works. If no works, then is there faith?

5) "The megachurch still makes sense."

This is SO tired. Honestly. I don't even go to a megachurch because I'm not terribly fond myself. But seriously, even if you're right about megachurches missing a culture that is moving to postmodernity/postchristianity...aren't the modernist people loved by Jesus too? Or are only the postmoderns worthy of service and mission? Tired tired tired.

Why was this even allowed? Is this blog solely about through rocks at the reformed and/or conservative movement? No concerns whatsoever about the divisiveness of the postmoderns and emergents? No hypocrisy at all, Pomo, with your statement about arrogance and divisiveness? No, you're all just being "prophetic"...right?

Was there some relevant reason for this blog post? Your critiques are just warmed over arguments that wouldn't have been out of place from mainline or liberal theologians in the 1980's. You make a few silly generalizations but contribute nothing new to the conversation. Were you running on a deadline this week?

Alright I'm cynical enough to think this was written simply to raise the ire of some...Oh well, I'll bite...

I do sense a growing annoyance with the way that movements/conferences like TGC, T4G, and the recent Advance Conference resonate.

Everybody and their mother has a conference. Everybody wants their's to be packed. TGC, T4G, and Advance were and are...

But some seem frustrated. TGC (et. al.) is not a circumference without a center, yet it is relevant. That attracts this sort of analysis.

However, said analysis is increasingly predicatable:

Mentioning Piper and Carson (usually Driscoll), but rarely Keller (also a TGC-er)

Making it sound as if TGC is a bunch of proverbial white pointy-headed intellectuals sitting around arguing against the new perspective and talking about what they're not for.

TGC is frankly a racially and denominatinally diverse group of pastors and scholars actually doing ministry in academic, suburban, urban, and yes "post-Christian" cultures.

Wow--sounds like you touched a nerve--let's all try to accept that people can disagree about something without being prompted by evil motives--either the "neo-reformed" or the "pomo".
Your first point doesn't necessarily follow for me. I think you are right that lots (most?) of Christians today don't have any real doctrine to be renewed. I think the TGC folk would say that is a big part of the problem, and I kind of agree. I am not seeing what alternative you are offering. I don't think that understanding (or retelling) a narative is a real substitute for also having some doctrinal touchstones.
I think that we need to BOTH focus on Christ at the center as revealed through the big picture of the BIblical narrative AND recognize some fences as the out bounds of orthodoxy.

Thank you all for your reactions.
Allow me to clarify a few things, because some of the editing done here has taken away from the original tone of the piece. No offense to the editors at Out of Ur, all writing must be trimmed down.
First, I was not saying getting doctrine right was unimportant. Rather I was saying "If TGC thinks doctrinal purity is the single issue, and leaves it at that, they will be a coalition for retrenchment as opposed to an expedition for mission."
As for the Reformed theology, what part of "individualism" don't you understand Melody and Paul? No one discredits the authority of the Bible, it is putting the authority to interpret the Bible in the autonomous individual mind that I was suggesting is the problem. This is the genesis of the enlightenment and modernity and yes, relativism. I'm hardly the first to suggest this and you are hardly the first to ignore it.
As for the mega church, I am noticing that those who believe the "preaching of the Word" is our solution also tend to elevate pastor-teachers into mega church situations (the examples are too numerous). I suggest this is a problem because in post Christendom - the uninitiated (to Christianity) do not come to hear preaching as much and when they do, they don't understand. There has to be a communal embodied presense engaging these people.
So for many reasons, I think TGC is handicapped from engaging those contexts defined by post Christendom. And yet I fear, after the so-called demise of Emergent, that the hoards of young disenchanted evangelicals, feel TGC is their only alternative.
I am suggesting the Neo-Anabaptist Missional (Hirsch, Roxburgh, Claiborne, McKnight etc.) offer an alternative.
Peace

David,

I'm sorry the editing changed the tone of your piece. I was trying to avoid that.

If any of you would like to read David's original piece, you can find it here:

http://www.reclaimingthemission.com/the-gospel-coalition-and-post-christendom-will-it-be-a-coalition-or-expedition-some-reflections-and-concerns/

"The only people these types of "coalitions" help is those who are a part of it. All it does it push away and alienate those who do not follow the party line."

...Actually, I come from a Wesleyan and emerging church background, and listening to TGC podcasts and reading the books of a few of their leaders has been a big part in shaping my view of the gospel in the last few years, and increasing both the clarity and importance of it in my life and ministry.

I don't call myself a Calvinist and I don't agree with TCG's view on women in ministry.

But I'm happy to put those things aside and agree with anyone who has a biblical understanding of the gospel.

David,

I was at this conference and I don't think you are off base at all. As a matter of fact, it was so predictable it was the most boring thing I've been to in years. Keller gave a great talk on identifying idols in our culture. It was very good. Everything else, pretty standard Reformed and conservative kind of stuff (although Ajith Fernando was great too).

It seems to me your assessments are overly general, but essentially accurate.

"I suggest this is a problem because in post Christendom - the uninitiated (to Christianity) do not come to hear preaching as much and when they do, they don't understand. There has to be a communal embodied presense engaging these people."

While I appreciate your passion here, this language (post Christendom, uninitiated, communal embodied presence)is sort of code that does not compute.

I honestly don't know a lot of people who use those words (which may only mean I'[m helplessly out of touch)
But, perhaps one draw of TGC is the straightforwardness of language from many within it's ranks. I thinks that's refreshing to a generation tired of postmodern-speak:

Consider James MacDonald's assessment at a conference several years ago:

"I think sometimes we’re a little more impressed with culture than we ought to be. Hardy anybody goes, “Yea, I was really into my culture. I was postmodern…” I haven’t met that guy yet. Most of the people I meet are like, “Yea I was working over at the factory, and my life sucked, and my marriage was falling apart, and I figured out I was an idiot…” That’s the kind of people who get saved around here. I don’t know where these other people are. I guess somebody should reach them. But I just never really meet those people. The people I meet are going along doing their thing, and they figure out their things not working, and so their looking around for something else, and somebody who loved them enough found them and told them they could have their lives changed for all eternity."

That I can understand...

David, have you read TGC's "theological vision for ministry"? (http://www.thegospelcoalition.org/about/foundation-documents/vision/) Here, they specifically address your valid concerns about evangelicalism (individualism, contextualization, social justice). How effectively TGC embodies these values remains to be seen.

David:
Even post-edit I thought your piece reflects both an empathetic and a critical voice toward TGC. Excellent job.

I, personally, find TGC's theological foundations (as presented here) to be absolutely ridiculous and unfortunate. IMO it reflects that conservative tendency to 'circle the wagons' at every new (or not so new threat). What I find especially frustrating is the lack of dialog these type of exclusionist theologies create.

Great job sticking your neck out and affirming women's ordination!

I think you closed the piece well by affirming your associate with TGC, while admitting its need to never stop reforming. I don't agree with a whole lot in the piece, but you did a great job writing it.

Earl Barnett

ben, I've read it. My five statements are more impressions of what I think TGC might be implying in their work so far, even though they may not say it explicitly. I'm testing this thesis. I'm putting these statements out there because this is the message I think they are sending implicitly and I'm willing to be wrong, in fact I'd be happy to be.

Matt, I get what you're saying and I apologize that the words appear theologically obfuscating. Nonetheless, I push back, for it is the assumptions of pastor James (contained in his statement) that I also believe need questioning. Are these people he speaks of returning to Christ, from previous church experience? For,we need to ask whether, in the Northwest suburbs of Chicago, indeed all the other places where Harvest Chapel plants churches, are we seeing more post Christendom pagans coming into Christ? or are we seeing all the smaller surrounding community churches closing in the face of a large church moving in, with an excellenet music program, and a radio preacher attracting all the christendom leftovers away from communal (and demanding) Christian living? The statistics I have seen, and the accounts of church closings, suggest we need to ask this question seriously. And this question should not just be addressed by Harvest staff but all other mega churches as well.
That's one of the questions this post is seeking to address.
Of course, I can try to learn how to say it all without using theological jargonish short hand. Sorry.
Thanks for your comments.

The question that promted MacDonald's quote which obviously was significant enough to me that I wrote it down, related to his critique of the obsession with postmodernism, "culture," etc.

As I recall the context, the person he illustrated was a lost person, "Uninitiated" as you say.

There is clarity in his statement. The Christian preoccupation with postmodern nuances to describe people just doesn't fit the experience of a lot of average people. Conversely, the kind of person MacDonald decribes is exactly like the guy I work with, my neighbor, etc.

I find the refreshing message from many within TGC is the simple truth people are lost. God is great. And within his great unthwarted purpose, I can be used to reach those people with the gospel.

I can understand why people rally around the simplicity of that.

There is certainly much that could be said here, but I just wanted to comment that I found the article very helpful. The tone was respectful, affirming the potential of the neo-reformers, while still offering clarified criticism. It was helpful for me to read about the potential problems in regards to several fundamental misconceptions of the movement.

This is exactly the type of writing I expect from "Out of Ur" and look forward to reading more of.

Thanks again Mr. Fitch

David, your response to my use of the term 'individual' is crucial to what is happening here and in seminaries throughout the western world. You say, "No one discredits the authority of the Bible..." and yet I read a questioning of Biblical authority as a constant drumbeat on this site all the time. "...it is putting the authority to interpret the Bible in the autonomous individual mind that I was suggesting is the problem." You seem to be suggesting that though I have a college degree in religion I am incapable of discerning the truth of what the Bible says and/or the truth of what you say in light of what I read in the Bible. That seems rather arrogant of you don't you think? You actually seem to imply that private individuals should not even read the Bible but rather wait for the word from some 'recognized authority'. "This is the genesis of the enlightenment and modernity and yes, relativism. I'm hardly the first to suggest this and you are hardly the first to ignore it." I must admit to being rather weary of the liberal theology mantra claiming that:

1. Traditional Evangelicalism is the step-child of the Enlightenment - a claim that demonstrates mere surface knowledge of both;

2. That 'modernity' is something other than a period of time;

2. The Enlightenment and the celebration of the individual are unbiblical and evil.

Wowza. Mr Fitch, you hit a nerve. I believed your assessment was spot on and well articulated.

The last conference TGC had was predominately attended by men. I watched the whole conference and followed various Twitter feeds.

TGC does not know this, but, it has played a huge roll in an ongoing (and now much heated) debate regarding women staffing in such ministries as Campus Crusade for Christ here in the United States.

Young, reformed, well intentioned men are now challenging being 'taught' by women on campus and citing conferences like TGC as examples of the reformed trend moving away from women in leadership roles, and in ministry. Even going as far to call it a sin.

When a group stands up for the gospel, I am excited and energized. When I am told, as a woman, that I cannot stand alongside, it grieves me.

With a grievous and humble heart, I fear that years down the road, we will see a movement totally void of the other half of the body of Christ. Women.

God inspired. God breathed. God ordained.

They will be told to stand on the sidelines, while the coalition of men stand up for the truth.

How that must grieve God's heart...

I disagree with Mr. Fitch.
http://hereiblog.com/gospel-coalition-or-assertions/

I know nothing of TGC but I appreciated the tone of this article, as several others have noted. I did not read it as a condemnation but an opportunity for meaningful dialogue.

Melody, I do not believe Mr. Fitch would suggest that individuals can NOT understand Scriptural truths. However, given his multiple references to the importance of community, I believe he would endorse the use of the community hermeneutic. Rather than having many individuals exclusively reading their Bibles and waiting for God's revelation in their separate homes, the New Testament shows that we are to live and grow together, including our understanding of Jesus and our life in Him. I need you and you need me. I have me already (in an overabundance) but I need my brothers and sisters, in whom the Holy Spirit is active, to help draw me closer to Christ.

Melody, you also initially stated that the Bible is our only source of truth. That is not Biblical. The Bible contains amazing reflections of truth. God is truth. The Holy Spirit is God present in us. Most of us do not know how to live well in the Spirit but that is God's preference. We are Christ-followers, not Bible-followers. Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for focusing on the Torah instead of the One about whom the Torah spoke. Much love!