TOGETHER FOR WHAT GOSPEL?

Please allow me to say some things about myself at the very outset of this article. I am not closely aligned with those who are sometimes (and often) pejoratively referred to as separatists, of either the fundamentalist and the holiness variety. While I think I understand some of their concerns and recognize and respect some of those concerns as legitimate, I am neither scripturally nor theologically persuaded that “separatism” is the way forward for the church of Jesus Christ.

Still, some doctrines and practices ought  to be avoided as the spiritual and practical plagues they are. By extension, I also believe that this sometimes requires a separation from those teaching unbiblical doctrines or engaging in ungodly practices. Nevertheless, I am not convinced that many advocates of separatism are as discerning as they should be in what needs to be separated from. Sometimes it seems to me that separatists have absolutized the culturals in their well-meant, yet misguided efforts to walk in the light in what can be a very dark and wicked world.  For example, I unashamedly like  good “Christian rock” as I do good Christian “Country-Western” music and do not see an oxymoron in any of this. For these reasons most of my fundamentalist and holiness friends believe that I went terribly wayward.

That being said, I am not ready to join in with many contemporary forms of Ecumenicalism.  Unity yes. Compromise no. In the name of unity many Christians are evidently willing to engage in biblical, theological, and even moral reductionism, just so that we can all hold hands and sing “we are the Christian world”. Unity is good until it is polluted with bad teaching or bad practices. There is simply too much of the “world” in much of the Christian world. I think modern but conservative Evangelicals need to be very and perhaps more discerning in this regard. I neither want to “throw the baby out with the bath water”, nor do I want the bath water to become my source of drinking water. Absolutizing the culturals is bad. Culturalizing the absolutes is worse.  This is not (or should not be) a “to separate or not to separate” question. Rather it is (or should be) a “what should we separate from?”  In like manner, the issue is not ”should we ever come together with people we may have some serious disagreements with?” Rather, “what should we be willing to come together over?”

There is a contemporary effort represented in a certain conference called “Together For The Gospel”. It is lead by the well-known Evangelicals, Mark Dever,  Ligon Duncan, C. J. Mahaney and Albert Mohler. These men minister in very different settings and come from very different ecclesiastical and theological traditions. Now who could be against coming together for the Gospel? But it is not in their differences that we should focus our attention if we wish to discern their purpose or goal in coming “Together”. It is on what they already believe in common. More importantly, it is not what they believe in common that is so crucial in understating what they have come “Together” to accomplish. Rather, it is what they desire others to believe (in common with them) as well. Others that presently do not believe what they believe. It is not that it is a bad thing to want everyone to believe the Gospel, and agree on what the Bible says is the Gospel. That would be a very good thing. It is that they want others (that presently do not believe what they believe about the Gospel) to believe that the Gospel is Reformed. A Reformed Gospel is represented in the five points of Calvinism and only in the five points of Calvinism.

These men want others to believe, as they do, that the Gospel is a shorter name for the Reformed or Calvinist doctrines of grace, otherwise known as the five points of Calvinism. If they were to refer to their conference as “Together For the Calvinist or Reformed Gospel” it would not be much of a concern to me. But if they were so transparent,  they might not attract as many non-Calvinists as they are hoping to.  They would (most likely) end up preaching to other Calvinists (kind of like they do in their respective churches) that already believe what they believe. That would defeat one of their objectives for coming “Together”.

To truly reach a lost person with the saving message of Jesus Christ you need to preach, proclaim, or explain the Gospel as it is found and declared in Scripture. We call that (or used to) Evangelism.  When believers of one theological persuasion try to convince believers of another theological persuasion to change their mind about something theologically and doctrinally important, that is not Evangelism. There is of course a time, place and proper way to try and persuade other believers of your particular view or out of theirs. The way this conference is promoted is not the proper time and place for such an effort. The way they are doing it is not the right way to do it, unless the measure of rightness is judged by how effective it is. Do we judge something to be right simply because it may work?

If this “Together” effort is over a matter that would cause a person to leave his present church or association of churches (and it is) to join another church or association of churches (or to take a stand against his own church or association of churches), that is called proselytizing and is in fact not about coming “Together” as advertized. I am not against all forms of proselytizing. I happily proselytize a Mormon every chance I get. But let us not be fooled. This coming “Together” is about “Coming Over” to Reformed theology or Calvinism. As it is, this particular kind of effort may successfully result in new converts to Calvinism but few non-Christians to Christ. Rather than promote unity among believers of very different theological convictions, it will undoubtedly result in greater division in the already very divided and very contentious Calvinist and non-Calvinist camps.

I will happily work with a Calvinist on issues we agree on. But I appreciate honesty and openness concerning the agenda we are coming “Together” about. The “Together For The Gospel” conference seems anything but honest and open and it certainly is not going to lead to more unity among Evangelicals but less unity. It is no accident that all three special guests announced for the first “Together For The Gospel” conference included John MacArthur Jr., R.C. Sproul Sr., and John Piper, all very vocal advocates of the Reformed or Calvinist “Gospel”. They have strong differences on other issues, but on whether or not the Gospel is Reformed or Calvinist, they are united.  Because of their popularity, unity for them, can easily become the source of division for others. There are a lot of well-known and respected non-Reformed Evangelicals (such as a Norman Geisler) that are conspicuously absent from the list of invitees. For the sake of transparency, tell all the non-Calvinist Evangelicals that you want them to come “Together For The Reformed Gospel”.  Maybe they will and maybe they won’t. But at least they will know what they are really coming “Together” for.

If the Gospel is what Calvinists say it is (i.e., the five points of Calvinism) and not what non-Calvinists say, then coming “Together” could mean one of several things. (1) Let’s not discuss our understanding of the Gospel when come together. (2) Or let’s discuss our differences, and let the best understanding and view of the Gospel win. (3) Or it could mean, forget about what you believe (if you are not a Calvinist) and agree with us because Calvinism is the Gospel. My money is on the third option.