Does the UK need The Gospel Coalition?

Affinity have announced in a press release plans to set up a UK version of The Gospel Coalition.

  TGC describes itself as

“ a fellowship of evangelical churches in the Reformed tradition deeply committed to renewing our faith in the gospel of Christ and to reforming our ministry practices to conform fully to the Scriptures. “ [1]

They have developed a strong identity in the US and internationally due to their connection with founding leaders including Tim Keller, John Piper and Don Carson and have effectively brought together pastors and theologians to offer significant resources through their website and their conferences.

Now, I’m committed to seeing effective Gospel partnership and personally will work with as many believers as possible. However, I do have a few questions before we start developing new institutions here in the UK.

First, given that we already have the Evangelical Alliance which represents a broad range of evangelical backgrounds and Affinity, which tends to offer a narrower reformed focal poin t for unity and given that there are Gospel Partnerships across the country, how will a TGC UK differentiate from them? What will it offer that isn’t already available through those networks, various conferences and conventions as well as a significant level of theological provision through theological colleges including Oak Hill, Union and Crosslands etc?

Second, The Gospel Coalition have in effect become a brand identity in the US.  Do we want another brand name in the UK?

Third, given that we can access The Gospel Coalition’s resources directly via their website, what specific needs are there for a UK variant.  In what way will this improve accessibility to The Gospel Coalition? How will it better support Christians and churches in the UK than what TGC already offer?

Fourth, whilst I’ve been supportive and appreciative of much that TGC have offered and done over the years as well as specific individuals linked to The Gospel Coalition, many of us have had specific concerns in recent years. Those include the setting up of new sub institutions named after living Christian leaders and also some questionable editorial choices over books and articles.  You can see some examples under the TGC tag on this site. What steps are being taken by TGC to address those concerns and how will a British version avoid being linked to and continuing those errors?

Fifth: Is this primarily about Affinity building a closer, formal partnership with TGC recognising it as a sister organisation? Does that potentially involve a rebrand for name commonality? Those things are possible and I don’t think necessarily bad. For example, it may be easier to get people to come from other places (not just US) to a TGC UK event than and Affinity one. Affinity are free as an organisation to pursue such partnerships and even to consider mergers with other organisations if that is what their constituent members desire and agree to. If this is the case, my only advice would be:

a. Be open about this direction of travel from the start.

b. Pay attention to the risks and challenges as well as opportunities from a merger, including that mergers often end up feeling like takeovers.

c. Be ready to lose as well as to gain, including churches and individuals who may decide that they cannot partner in this.

Finally and most crucially, we often hear about these top level initiatives to encourage networking and provide resources but I am more concerned about the difference it will make on the frontline.  So, there are two parts to this.  First where is the pressure at grassroots, local church level coming from for a British TGC?  Second, what difference will it actually make in helping pastors and planters, particularly in urban contexts?

I look forward to receiving answers to my questions.

[1] Foundation Documents of The Gospel Coalition

Postscript

I don’t intend to be involved in a lengthy running engagement/series of articles and commentary on this subject here, beyond sharing my own attempt at an answer to the main question I’ve posed in a few weeks time.

However, I wanted to add a postscript based on what has come back in initial responses. First, questions have been welcomed and that is positive. However, the indication has been that those questions must be submitted privately by email, that Affinity will not respond on social media to questions. Given that the announcement was made on social media, it seems a little unwise not to then engage with questions in the places where you made the announcement. Secondly, if you want to be seen to be encouraging wider/deeper fellowship and engagement then perhaps insisting on private correspondence rather than public discussion isn’t the best PR move!

Similarly I’m surprised at the suggestion that answers will need to come in time because you would expect the kind of questions I’m asking which are to do with the “why” to be anticipated. If I had made the announcement I’d have also prepared for what were likely to be the Frequently Asked Questions in order to head of speculation and uncertainty.

Others have been asking “how/what” questions about governance and finance. Again, if this were a new and unique thing I might expect the details to need some working on. However, the reality is that Affinity are proposing to adopt a model into the UK which has been up and running for many years and rolled out around the world. It seems at best naive to assume that there is going to be much freedom and choice in terms of departure from that model.