Why the Disagreement Over the Church’s Mission?: A Potential Insight into the Current Debate

Over the last week I’ve been trying to figure why some of my Young, Restless, and Reformed heroes can’t get along when it comes to defining and discussing the church’s mission. Indeed, the discussion has been, for the most part, charitable. It seems that The Gospel Coalition, 9Marks, Acts 29, and Together 4 the Gospel will advertise for one another at conferences and link to the other’s blog.

Still, I want to know why Ed Stetzer and Kevin DeYoung can’t agree on what seems to be a simple matter. Why do Greg Gilbert and Trevin Wax not see eye to eye on this issue? How come one group liked Deep Church and the other didn’t?  What are the truly Young and Reformed to think in this restless debate?

I don’t propose a full-orbed or even sufficient answer, but I may have a potential insight.  Perhaps the difference lies in one’s view of the “Christ and Culture” debate.  Along with missiology, the Christ and Culture debate has elicited a number of books and articles over the last few decades.  While Presbyterians and Baptists find agreement within their ranks on polity and baptist, the debate surrounding Christ and Culture goes across denominational lines since no particular tradition has a monopoly on the question.

In my skim reading session of What is the Mission of the Church? and various blogs covering the book’s discussion, it seems clear that DeYoung and Gilbert are largely sympathetic to the perspective of Michael Horton and David VanDrunen which espouses a particular form of the Two Kingdoms perspective on Christ and Culture.  In addition, DeYoung and Gilbert seem sympathetic to Horton’s ecclesiology where the church has a very limited role in terms of proclamation, discipleship, and the “ordinary means of grace.”

However, when we see Stetzer, Wax, Belcher, and Keller discussing the church’s mission, there is a more ‘culturalist’ tone that betrays at least some affinity for the ‘transformationalist’ perspective of Niebuhrian fame.  Indeed, the men listed would be similar in practice to Horton and co. concerning the pitfalls of the Religious Right movement and the lack of wisdom in having a politically partisan pulpit, but we might, to use George Marsden’s (and Keller’s) formulation, call Horton and co. ‘pietists’ and/or ‘doctrinalists’ and Keller and friends the ‘culturalists.’

Yet, even this debate goes back to another theological issue.  John Frame in his Doctrine of the Christian Life notes how Meredith Kline’s cult/culture dichotomy has framed this debate within the broad Reformed community.  This Klinean distinctive has perhaps been responsible for divisions over corporate worship as it now may be over the mission of the church.  On the other hand, those who favor a more Van Tilian-Kuyperian approach (as mediated through American evangelical theology) in its various neo-calvinistic forms probably see problems with DeYoung and Gilbert’s work. (Not surprisingly, VanDrunen has heavily criticized almost all forms of neo-calvinism in his chapter “Calvin, Kuyper, and Christian Culture” in Always Reformed:  Essays in Honor of W. Robert Godfrey)

If there is any insight at all to my suggestion, then maybe casting away our ignorance on discerning the real disagreement between DeYoung/Gilbert and their detractors might assist in the discussions going forward.  Such theological clarity is enlightening when one realize’s how indebted they are to a particular theological paradigm or proposition.

 

Mission, Gospel, and the Coalition: A Little Perspective

One of my favorite sports radio personalities, Colin Cowherd, is known for reminding the sports world on Monday morning, “Don’t overreact!” After an entire weekend of football, sports fans are prone to overreaction, especially now with social media at our fingertips. Cowherd attempts to “give perspective” and level the playing field before people claim “Tony Romo should be traded” or “Tim Tebow is an elite quarterback.”

The recent discussion/debate between Kevin DeYoung-Greg Gilbert, Trevin Wax, Ed Stetzer over DeYoung and Gilbert’s book What is The Mission of the Church? is evoked some passionate responses. The average onlooker may view Stetzer and Wax as having major beef with DeYoung and Gilbert.  This has made Carl Trueman chime in  that this debate on the church’s mission will accompany debates over the historical Adam and homosexuality as the top issues in the next decade.  Indeed, people are probably taking sides, saying, “I am of DeYoung/Gilbert” or “I am of Stetzer and his 20 books.”

But, we need perspective.  In reading the reviews and responses to DeYoung and Gilbert’s book (which I haven’t read), it is pretty clear that the differences are not enormously substantial.  After reading everything, I went back and viewed the panel discussion on this topic from The Gospel Coalition Conference this past April, before the book was even published.  It is very clear that the differences between a DeYoung and a Wax are more contextual than theological.  Wax served at a Baptist church in Shelbyville, TN while DeYoung serves at an RCA church in East Lansing, MI.  Wax’s emphasis on good works which ‘flow from the gospel’ and therefore need to be taught when talking about the gospel is connected to his previous call in the South with Christians who may know the truth of individual salvation but are rather passive in evangelism and mercy.  DeYoung is in a university context that is more progressive minded than Shelbyville, to be sure.  Justification and substitutionary atonement will take more center stage.  Even Matt Chandler’s context is unique as he tries to defeat the moralism that reigned previous in his context and show its contrast with the gospel of grace.

Yet, all sides agree that justification by grace through faith is essential if we are to teach good works, mercy, and evangelism.  All sides agree mercy and evangelism are important in the life of the church.  Ed Stetzer wants to make sure DeYoung and Gilbert don’t forget broader themes in Scripture that are ‘part’ of the gospel that influence our missional mindset and interaction with culture.

In other words, these friendly Reformed evangelicals are playing balancing acts with each other.  And thats okay!

Indeed, all these men know that when Paul ‘defines’ the gospel in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 that he didn’t mention justification by grace through faith, yet justification is part of the gospel.  Also, Paul sees his summary of the gospel in the passage as ‘sufficient’ for his audience and context to the church in Corinth.  In other words, what Paul says the gospel is (Jesus living, dying, and rising according to the Scriptures) is perfectly fine.  Yet, Paul could say much more (and he does say more in other epistles).  Indeed, whenever Paul, Jesus, John, Peter, or the author of Hebrews talks about the gospel, there is ALWAYS more they could say.  And the MORE is not trivial, redemptive-historical detail to show how Jesus is not just the true grain offering but is also the better free will offering.  The MORE that could be said is important.  Yet, these NT writers are contextual writers that are trying to encourage and exhort their audience.  They are occasionalistic writers.  They won’t unveil their systematic theology.  Rather, we get the tip of the theological iceberg and need to explore the rest of Scripture to get beneath the surface.

In the end, the most healthy way to define ‘the gospel’ in these books, conferences, and reviews with fellow evangelicals is ‘to be as balanced as the Bible is balanced.’  Yet, what is that balance?  That is the point of these discussions.  There aren’t large fences between drawn up so that these good fences will make good missional-ecclesial neighbors.  These men will overstate and understate points.  They will misunderstand the other.  But the Young, Restless, Reformed world is not crashing down.

We need perspective.  Indeed, Stetzer, DeYoung, Keller, Driscoll, etc. are more unified on these issues than many of their rabid followers.  I love Keller, but I can’t stand some Kellerites (or Drisollites, or Duncanites, or DeYoungites).  While Kellerites and Duncanites wonder if the PCA can hold all these various viewpoints together, Keller and Duncan are have gracious debates and discussions at the PCA General Assembly and commending the other’s ministry.  Seems like their ‘followers’ aren’t as good  imitating as they think.

Again, it is easy to blow up the blogosphere/social media and claim that TGC is falling apart of that the Reformed missional movement is in disarray.  We will be told that the Old Life is better lived or that the arrogant Celebrities of the Reformed world is dooming us all.

Have some perspective.