Dear Evangelical Times
My own views on the proposal for a UK version of The Gospel Coalition are on the record here. I was disappointed at the time that those proposing the new institution made it clear that they weren’t really interested in feedback or discussion from those who had reservations and concerns. However, I also believe that there is freedom for those who wish to form groupings and organisations to do so, that’s their choice and so with it being confirmed that TGC UK is going ahead, I want to wish those involved in the venture well and hope that it will provide encouragement and blessing to those involved.
I did not plan to comment further on the proposals, however, I was rather grieved by this response from Evangelical Times. And so, I want to respond here, with an open letter. I also will provide a shorter version to give you the option of including it in your letters to the editor section.
The columnist, Paul Smith writes:
“Many long for greater gospel unity but questions have been raised about what compromises have been made to achieve this coalition. What is its centre of gravity? Will it serve to strengthen or erode culturally unpopular biblical truths?”
So, the article starts negatively, immediately creating an air of suspicion that goes well beyond the questions and concerns previously raised. There should be recognition that there are primary and secondary issues so that evangelical unity beyond local churches and denominations/networks should be possible where there is disagreement on such secondary and frankly even third order issues.
Smith continues
“The term Reformed is used loosely. The Reformed confessions begin by stating that prophetic revelation ceased when Scripture was complete. TGC-UK will draw in so-called ‘Charismatic Calvinists’ from Newfrontiers churches and thus ‘Reformed’ means little more than a belief in God’s sovereignty in salvation.
What Smith is doing here, is taken one (his) interpretation of some confessions of faith (he doesn’t actually cite them here) and building from that a claim about reformed teaching overall which also fundamentally misunderstands the doctrine of those concerned. Evangelical Times have a previous track record of making unfounded attacks on those who hold a reformed and charismatic position. I responded to a previous example here and here
Important things to note are first, that it is untrue to suggest that for Reformed Charismatics, the reformed doctrine stops at “a belief in God’s sovereignty in salvation.” I would encourage Smith to engage with what other people actually believe rather than creating his own strawman to attack. Being reformed and charismatic involves fully subscribing to the five solas: faith alone, grace alone, Scripture alone, Christ alone, God’s glory alone. Reformed Charismatics therefore recognise Scripture’s unique authority in line with 2 Timothy 3:16-17. I recognise that cessationists may have questions about how gifts like prophecy fit into this. The simple answer is that Reformed Christians have always understood there to be a distinction between Special and General Revelation.
Smith raises a concern that we should be reducing not increasing cooperation with Anglican Evangelicals who choose to remain in the Church of England. I share that concern though would note that the issue of cooperation goes further back and deeper than recent ethical disagreements and differences over egalitarian v complementarian views. Instead, we need to take into account the longer term history of leadership committed to a liberal agenda. Having said that, I note that Affinity already includes Church Society as one of their members so TGC UK will not change that status. My understanding is that their aim will be to maintain fellowship and support for those Evangelicals who believe God has called them to stay in the CofE and resist liberalism. I think that approach to be mistaken not least because it misunderstands how the CofE actually works. However, I can understand the reasoning behind such an approach.
On complementarianism, Smith says:
TGC was co-founded by Tim Keller, who used the term complementarian loosely. Keller’s wife, Kathy, is known for the mantra ‘a woman may do anything a non-ordained man may do.’ In practice this means only men have the title of elder or give ‘authoritative teaching’, but women may otherwise lead and teach in seminaries, at conferences and in churches.
I’m not sure what Smith means when he says that Keller used the term loosely. Is his objection that Keller took a narrow definition of complementarianism, that it refers specifically to the relationship of husband and wife and that it applies to the role of elders in the church but that we should not go beyond what Scripture says in terms of seeking to place other burdens on people? Smith might not be aware that people like my friend Steve Kneale who he cites favourably support such a narrow definition of being complementarian. Smith may be interested to know that such a narrow definition fits well with the reality of life for much of history, that the wide definition that overprescribes what women can and cannot do relies on human philosophy rather than divine revelation and perhaps has more to do with 1950s US culture than God’s Word.
The article goes on to list a series of potential links to TGC contributors that TGC UK may or may not provides and suggests that these are sinister and dangerous.
No doubt the TGC-UK website will contain some helpful articles and part of its breadth will be to include good people on its council. Good articles will be shared and read, and then naturally people will browse to the next link.
It goes on to suggest some of those potential, sinister links and people as including Brett MacCracken, Gavin Ortlund, Andrew Wilson, Rebecca McLaughlin and Glen Scrivener. He throws in some general allegations about each, without substantiating them or again allowing room for people to verify or challenge. MacCracken for example is accused of promoting “R-rated movies with sexual content.” Has he done this or has he reviewed films enabling Christians to engage with the culture. Of course, it is possible to recognise that human weakness may mean that engagement with aspects of the culture is unwise for some. We might note that this will make reading of much of Scripture including parts of Genesis, Judges, Hosea and Ezekial will be a challenge for some.
I am perhaps understandably most grieved by his treatment of McLaughlin and Scrivener who I know well. Both are gracious, godly, highly intelligent and gifted. There would not be any danger at all in Reformed Evangelicals accessing content provided by either and indeed, it will be a great blessing for them not only to read content for themselves but to share resources provided by them with non-believers who have questions about God and the Gospel. Rebecca McLaughlin has written a number of excellent apologetics books including for children and young people. Glen’s Speak Life and 3-2-1 provide fantastic evangelistic resources and many will wisely be using his Christmas videos again this year.
About McLaughlin Smith writes:
“The link might be to Keller Center fellow Rebecca McLaughlin, who wrote that in ‘areas of cultural engagement, we need to let our most credible voices speak’. Thus, ‘same-sex attracted Christians… men and women of color’ and ‘rhetorically gifted women’ lead and ‘the rest of us must follow’.
The quotes are uncited and so we lack context. I am going to hazard a guess though that McLaughlin is talking about allowing those with experience in particular areas of culture to take a lead, those are the voices most likely to be given a hearing in the public square. They have credible testimony. I note that McLaughlin isn’t saying that we don’t have a voice on those issues if we are not from those backgrounds but, just as has been the case when it comes to same sex attraction we have followed the likes of True Freedom Trust for many years. It means that for example on matters of ethnicity, we do pay attention to conservative evangelical voices from black and other ethnic minority backgrounds, noting that there may well be disagreement between them over how to engage on racism. We should not assume that there is a homogenous position.
About Scrivener, he writes:
“The link might be to English evangelist and Keller Center fellow Glen Scrivener who speaks of hell as disconnection. And on the question of gender he has written: ‘I often struggle with what it means “to be a man” and worry whether I am one – whatever one is.”
Again, we have examples of a few words taken out of context so that we do not know the points that Glen was making . Is hell “disconnection”? Well, there seems to be something of that about it doesn’t there? Hell is not a place where people experience/are connected God’s love, it is a place where not even common grace is present. Is that all we would say about Hell? Of course not.
In terms of gender, surely it is reasonable to ask whether or not the stereotypes of this world fit with both our own identity and more importantly what Scripture says. I hear a lot of stereotypes employed about what men should be that go beyond what the Bible tells us. I prefer to stick to the sense that there is a providing and protecting role for men in relation to their families. That kind of covers it.
Yet, even if we disagree with those particular people on specific issues. Does that mean that they are people we should distance ourselves from? Are we not in fellowship with them? Have we nothing to learn from them?
I suspect that both Rebecca and Glen are too gracious and probably too busy with Gospel work right now to respond to the obnoxious and ungodly, insinuations of Smith. However, his article oversteps the mark. It is ironic to see the attacks on the people named above whilst ET have been giving people like Doug Wilson a free pass in recent times.
There is place for a good conversation and robust debate about the way forward for Gospel unity but this article does not contribute to that. I hope that the author and editor will repent, apologise and remove it.
Yours
Dave Williams
Faithroots 