The Gospel Coalition’s Thin-Skinned Long Arm

I did not see Kevin DeYoung’s post at his Gospel Coalition blog about confessionalism and pietism — and for good reason. Between the time you opened the page and blinked it was gone. (And it promised to be the first of a three-part series.)

(UPDATE: For those old enough to remember the Tonight Show when Johnny Carson was the host, and Doc Severinson was the band leader, Doc was not always present, often playing other gigs. Johnny regularly said to Ed McMahon, “Doc is here? Doc is not here.” In that same vein, Kevin’s post was not here. It is now here.)

Why it vanished from the Gospel Coalition website is a mystery. At the risk of shameless self-promotion, the reason may have to do with DeYoung’s decision to interact with The Lost Soul of American Protestantism, a book written by this blogger. Seemingly, any attention given to the Old Life case for confessionalism is improper at the Gospel Coalition because that case has uncomfortable implications for the gospel Allies.

And at the risk of seeing the Gospel Coalition administrators purge DeYoung’s thoughtful comments altogether from the Internet (they are currently available at his Facebook page), I am preserving his piece here below. Unlike the Gospel Coalition, where disagreements about polity, the sacraments, and even the eternal decrees, are not permitted to surface for the sake of fighting the Axis powers of inauthentic Christianity, I regard a blog as simply a place to discuss and kvetch. (I imagine that several days worth of Prozac and Prilosec comes with the registration packet at the Gospel Coalition conference to keep the conferees in good humor and free from indigestion.)

Here is DeYoung’s post (reaction to follow):

Can Pietism and Confessionalism Be Friends? (Part 1 of 3)

by Kevin DeYoung on Friday, April 8, 2011 at 12:27pm

Those outside Presbyterian circles may not be aware (and may not care), but there has been a lot of discussion over the past few years about the dangers of pietism and how it differs radically from the older (read: better) model of confessionalism. Pietism, it is said, emphasizes dramatic conversions, tends toward individualism, pushes for unity based on shared experience, and pays little attention to careful doctrinal formulation. Confessionalism, on the other hand, is a more churchly tradition, with creeds and catechisms and liturgy. It emphasizes the ordinary means of word and sacrament and prizes church order and the offices. It is pro-ritual, pro-clergy, and pro-doctrine, where pietism, it is said, stands against all these things.

I am sympathetic with much of this critique of evangelical pietism. I agree with Darryl Hart’s contention in The Lost Soul of American Protestantism that American evangelicalism has tried too hard to be relevant, has largely ignored organic church growth by catechesis, has too often elevated experience at the expense of doctrine, has minimized the role of the institutional church, and has worn out a good number of Christians by assuming that every churchgoer is an activist and crusader more than a pilgrim. Confessionalism would be good tonic for much of what ails the evangelical world.

Concern for Confessionalism

And yet, I worry that confessionalism without a strong infusion of the pietism it means to correct, can be a cure just as bad as the disease. Is there a way to reject revivalism without discounting genuine revival in the Great Awakening? Can I like Machen and Whitefield? Is there a way to say, “Yes, the church has tried too hard to Christianize every area of life” while still believing that our private faith should translate into public action? Hart argues that after revivalism Christian devotion was no longer limited to “formal church activities on Sunday or other holy days,” but “being a believer now became a full-time duty, with faith making demands in all areas of life” (13). Given the thrust of the book, I think it’s safe to say Hart finds this troubling.

Further, Hart clearly sides with the Old Side in New England that opposed the Great Awakening, its emphasis on inner experience, and the insistence that ministers be able to give an account of God’s work in their hearts (32-42). While I agree wholeheartedly that experience does not a Christian make, I wish the strong confessional advocates would do more to warn against the real danger of dead orthodoxy. It is possible to grow up in a Christian home, get baptized as an infant, get catechized, join the church, take the Lord’s Supper, be a part of a church your whole life and not be a Christian. It is possible to grow up in an Old World model where you inherit a church tradition (often along ethnic lines), and stay in that church tradition, but be spiritually dead. There are plenty of students at Hope College and Calvin College (just to name two schools from my tradition) who are thoroughly confessional as a matter of form, but not converted.

I have no hesitation in commending confessionalism. My concern is that pietism–with its private Bible study, small group prayer, insistence on conversion, and the cultivation of “heart” religion–is frequently set against confessionalism. For example, Hart agues, “Confessional Protestantism invites another way of evaluating the making of believers. Its history demonstrates the importance of inheritance and the way that believers appropriate faith over a lifetime through the sustained ministry and counsel of pastors as opposed to the momentary crisis induced by the itinerant evangelist or the pressures of sitting around a fire at summer camp” (184). I like the first sentence, but why so negatively caricature the work of itinerant evangelists and the real conversions that may come at summer camp? I could be misreading Hart. Maybe he has no problem with any of these things. But when he says, “the central struggle throughout Protestantism’s history has been between confessionalism and pietism, not evangelicalism and liberalism” (183), I worry that committed Presbyterians will steer clear of anything that gets painted with a broad brush as “pietism.”

A Confessionalism with Deep Piety

We all feel and respond to different dangers (for example, see Ligon Duncan’s post and William Evans’ post, both of which I like). No doubt, revivalistic, hyper-experiential, adoctrinal, deeds-not-creeds, tell-me-the-exact-moment-you-were-born-again, go-conquer-the-world-for-Christ Christianity has a load of problems. If that’s pietism, then I want no part of it.

But I want a certain kind of confessionalism. I want a confessionalism that believes in Spirit-given revival, welcomes deep affections, affirms truth-driven experience, and understands that the best creeds should result in the best deeds. I want a confessionalism that believes in the institutional church and expects our Christian faith to impact what we do in the world and how we do it. I want a confessionalism that is not ashamed to speak of conversion—dramatic conversion for some, unnoticed conversion for many.

I want a confessionalism that preaches and practices deep piety. Whether this is labeled “pietism” or just part of our rich confessional tradition doesn’t matter to me. What matters is that we have ministers and parishioners who realize there is an external and internal dimension to the faith. I want Christians to know that going to church, hearing the word, reciting the creeds, singing the hymns, and partaking of the sacraments is not peripheral to the Christian life; it our lifeblood. And I also want Christians who do all those things every week to pray in “their closets,” look for opportunities to share the gospel with the lost, submit to Christ’s lordship in every area of life, and understand that true faith is not only a knowledge and conviction that everything God reveals in his Word is true; it is also a deep-rooted assurance” that not only others, but they too “have been made forever right with God, and have been granted salvation” (Heidelberg Catechism Q/A 21).

Okay, I can’t resist one quick comment. Why does piety have to be “deep”? I understand that deep piety is good, and better than shallow piety. But what company makes the piety meter to detect whether it is deep or shallow? And what about those days when my piety is shallow? Am I less elect or justified? In other words, the word “deep” encourages an interest in me, not the gospel or God’s saving work.

This is not a reason to say, let’s have more shallow piety. But it may be a reason to be careful about the words we use lest we fall prey to the pride of thinking our own piety is deep. You’d think that folks who desire God and his glory might see how their piety standards nurture desires less theocentric and glorious.

This entry was posted in Piety with Excitement, sanctification, Shameless Selves Promotion and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Posted April 13, 2011 at 6:46 am | Permalink

    John T,

    You may think you understand the distinction between the Law and the Gospel but I am not sure you do in the sams way as some Lutherans and some Calvinists do. You might want to try to read Luther’s commentary on Galatians if you are interested but your comments reveal that you are not. I know you are a committed evangelical- at least you are consistent with your beliefs. You seem to even have some leanings towards confessionalism but you are not convinced that it is biblically sound yet. If you knew how to distinguish the Law and Gospel properly you would not be quoting the scripture verses that you did and using them as proof texts to retain your position.

  2. Lily
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    Zrim, again, I apologize for the lengthy comment trying to understand things. There are issues in your tradition that are non-issues in ours (eg: the heart/mouth disconnect). I still can’t understand why it is such a big deal other than the experiential crowd are using it as a prop to justify what they are doing.

  3. Lily
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    Nice points, John.

  4. Posted April 13, 2011 at 7:26 am | Permalink

    UK Paul,

    I saw your questions over at DeYoung’s blog. Way to pony up.

  5. Posted April 13, 2011 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    Lily, in a word I am simply saying that there has to be made room for the work of the Spirit. I’m all for what you’re saying about routine, habit and familiarity, and I like your analogy to multiplication tables. If I might build on it, my point is that memorizing the tables doesn’t in and of itself guarantee mathematical ability. In the same way, learning the Creed doesn’t guarantee regeneration. Those are essential forms for nurturing and then expressing internal realities. But anyone who has taught can tell you that some just don’t get it and there is absolutely nothing one can do to make it so. That doesn’t mean one resorts to inappropriate modes or measures, as in sticking a book under the student’s pillow (osmosis). The tables still must be habituated and internalized. Likewise the Creed instead of the testimony or the anxious bench.

    Still lost – “there is still a human being standing between the mode and the desired result.” – would you please explain? Aren’t we supposed to do things God’s way and trust the results to God?

    That’s what I’m saying. God’s way is the way of the creed (not the testimony), but God alone does the mysterious work of internal application, which is to say bringing together heart and mouth.

  6. Kevin DeYoung
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 9:28 am | Permalink

    I’m at the Gospel Coalition conference presently and so have not been able to read through all the posts and comments. I did want to clarify why the first post disappeared over the weekend. That was a simple mistake on my part. I accidentally hit “publish” without first setting the date for Tuesday. I then pulled it down so the three part series could come out now. No one pulled it down and there was no other reason for doing so other than that the button was pushed prematurely.

  7. Lily
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    Hi Zrim,

    Re: I am simply saying that there has to be made room for the work of the Spirit… my point is that memorizing the tables doesn’t in and of itself guarantee mathematical ability…. learning the Creed doesn’t guarantee regeneration. Those are essential forms for nurturing and then expressing internal realities. But anyone who has taught can tell you that some just don’t get it and there is absolutely nothing one can do to make it so. God alone does the mysterious work of internal application, which is to say bringing together heart and mouth.

    My best guess is that I’m being dense because of a difference in Reformed and Lutheran theology. I believe that the Holy Spirit is at work in us regardless of what I see going on in me or others. I do not think about the Creeds guaranteeing regeneration for it is God who gives faith to whom he pleases (when, where, how, and all that jazz). As for teachers concerned about measurable results… it seems goofy. One plants, one waters, another reaps the harvest… we are all in the process of growing into our Head in the unity of the faith. These are the scriptures that come to my mind. It is God’s work and we cannot see him, we cannot hurry him, and we cannot use our standards as to what we should expect or when – all the teacher can do is be faithful to patiently teach the truth, pray, and trust that God has, is, and will yet work through his teaching for the benefit of those under his care.

    As far as I can tell, we are all in the process of the “mysterious work of internal application.” This is one of the places where Lutherans and the Reformed butt heads. We are not try to pull back the curtain to look at the hidden work of God – thus we don’t try to explain it. Whereas, your tradition has pulled back the curtain and have written reams about it – explaining it from all kinds of angles (eg: Edwards’ Affections). From our perspective, this plays a role in why your tradition’s defenses against pietism have low walls. The pietists have been given a playground in subjective speculations about the hidden things of God.

  8. Derek Simmons
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 10:25 am | Permalink

    Since the explanation for the “disappearance” has nothing to do with the “depth”of GOSPELCOALTION skin, I for one think it would be great if all of the comments dealt with the very real issues and welcome discussion raised by Kevin DeYoung in his posts–now including two of the three he apparently intends to publish.

  9. Posted April 13, 2011 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    Lily, and my best guess is that you have less pietism to anticipate and accusations being L-U-T-H-E-R-A-N (or worse, promoting unregeneracy, etc.) when making the case for right forms of orthodoxy, etc. So I think you’re quite right when you suggest that our tradition is way more guilty of succumbing to the impulses of curtain pulling. It’s also why I think DGH is right to suggest we could a learn a lot from our closest theological relatives the L-U-T-H-E-R-A-N-S.

  10. Posted April 13, 2011 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Derek, that may explain why Kevin’s post disappeared but what accounts for comments not allowing links to Old Life posts yet Bayly blog posts pass the GC sensitivity meter. Is it because they are pro-Edwards (even though anti-Keller)?

  11. Lily
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 12:25 pm | Permalink

    Zrim, sometimes the way you put things really cracks me up – I do find it amusing the way ya’ll are charged with being Lutheran when it’s so clear you are not! Lutheran history is plagued with pietism and we are still battling it – I meant to make an observation that might be helpful not make an accusation. As you well know, ya’ll are welcome to anything we might have that is of use to you in your defense of the confessional Reformed faith.

    If it is any consolation, the confessional Lutherans get their fair share of grief and negative labels from those in our denomination who have embraced evangelical la-la land. If I understand things, the roots of our problems in the LCMS with liberalism start back in the early 20th century.

    Confessionals were beat up for 10 years under the last Synod President – who not only brought in CGM, but allowed Emergent gurus to teach seminars at one of our seminaries and at various district conferences, and other various mongrel theologies didn’t creep in but came in through an open door. Roughly speaking, our denomination is fairly equally split into the confessionals, the moderates, and the liberals (those who have surrendered to the dark side – shooting for some humor here!). We have a new Synod President who is beyond all what confessionals could have hoped for to help our synod get back on track. At this point in time, the confessionals are behaving themselves and seeking to support him in turning the good ship Missouri around. It will not be easy for him to change our course and will take many decades going in the same direction. So… as you can see, we have great sympathy for your situation and have a lot in common.

  12. DJ
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    I am amazed that links to this blog are blocked over there…

  13. Lily
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 1:04 pm | Permalink


    Re: I am amazed that links to this blog are blocked over there…

    Do you suppose Old Life might be viewed as pornographic? 😉

    Sorry, couldn’t resist the temptation for a smart-aleck quip, but in some ways the censorship is rather amusing – ya think?

  14. Posted April 13, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

    DJ, you may try if you like, but I attempted to link to my response to DeYoung when his piece went back up and each time I hit the return key the comment space went blank and nothing showed up under comments. (Yet, when I sparred this morning with Tim Bayly my link to Bayly Blog went through.) Maybe not thin skin but a thick filter, Soviet style.

  15. Posted April 13, 2011 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    Lily, I crack me up too. Even more in common.

  16. Lily
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 5:54 pm | Permalink

    Zrim, there is one more thing I would like to see our two camps have in common – that we would be able to find more of the survivors of the scorched earth left behind by evangelical movements. IMO, there are too many wounded Christians who have given up and no longer go to church because of the pietists. All they know is American Evangelicalism and do not know there is an alternative simply because we are so outnumbered. It’s also not unusual to run into another type of person who, when church is mentioned, give a firm no with the body language to go along with it. In my experience, it’s not unusual to find out they have seen through the phoniness of the evangelical churches and cannot find a reverent church like they went to in their youth – they intuitively recognize it’s not God at work and they are not rejecting Christ, but the evangelical nonsense. This is the main reason I am so interested in seeing ya’ll make inroads and succeed.

  17. "Michael Mann"
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 6:41 pm | Permalink

    “I am amazed that links to this blog are blocked over there…”

    Maybe censorship logically coheres with their worldview.

    …although, to be fair, it may be a technical glitch at GC whereas censorship seems to be the intent of the Baylys.

  18. "Michael Mann"
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 6:51 pm | Permalink

    Lilly, I think there are people such as you describe but their numbers are dwarfed by experience-seekers. I really wonder if there is something about the American psyche that tends towards democracy, independence, egalitarianism, experience, and change. These have their place, but they tend to run counter to what distinguishes confessionalism.

  19. Posted April 13, 2011 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    Lily, like Michael, I am quite confident there are folks like you describe. But I guess I’d want to be cautious about pinning too much on the dread pirate pietism–those staying quite away from the church do so for many complicated reasons, and I’d rather ascribe most of it to old-fashioned unbelief. Yeah, that’s a boring assessment, but that’s a confessionalist for you. Pietists, who like exciting assessments, like to think folks stay out because of the dread pirate creedalism and make all sorts of enthusiastic efforts to rescue poor burned over souls from the wounds of institutional religion blahblahblah. Yawn. I don’t want to fight pietsist fire with piestist fire.

    And if we’re going by experience, mine (as one who reluctantly converted but happily married into it) is that most American-made pietists remain ostensibly happy pietists and not many actually are aware enough to realize how exhausted they should be. It makes one wonder if they’re even paying attention to their own experiential system. Maybe they’re, ahem, faking it?

  20. Posted April 13, 2011 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    They have to be blocking Old Life links and trailbacks, because I wrote a post on Sunday night about TGC pulling down DeYoung’s post and Tuesday when it re-appeared, I updated my post and put an new link to the post now on TGC. I have gotten hits from the trailbacks from TGC.

    I guess my site hasn’t made their Public Enemy list yet.

  21. Posted April 13, 2011 at 9:51 pm | Permalink

    Joe, mine neither. Censsorship really does distort reality: I’ve never had so many hits on my blog before today.

  22. Lily
    Posted April 13, 2011 at 10:25 pm | Permalink

    Michael and Zrim, you are both right about making complex issues much too simplistic. I am also biased. I live in the Bible belt and in a metroplex that is littered with numerous mega-churches that influence too many other churches including the LCMS churches around me. My view is also colored since I remember growing up in an era when churches were normally reverential and denominations had boundaries. It wasn’t the fusion we see today. I wish someone would buy me a time machine!

    Michael, you are right about our American psyche – I would add that the changes in technology, changes in industry, celebrity/entertainment mentality, and post-modernism seem to contribute much too. You are also right about the experience seekers, too. We have a lot of that here.

    Zrim, you are right about many pietist remaining pietists. Loved the: “Maybe they’re, ahem, faking it?”

    And right about unbelief. What I’ve noticed is the number of burn-out/pain or anger/pain people seems to be increasing in those who have left churches. It has bothered me for quite a while and it’s the burn-out/pain ones that trip my trigger. I want to push back against the tide and see good confessional churches, but there is little I can do.

    Re: blahblahblah

    Phhhhhhhhhlttt! I have sappy bleeding heart moments! 😛

    P.S. I was disappointed on no one bit on the comparison of GC treating Old life like a porn site, but heck – I’m from a clan that thinks it’s great fun to plaster bad photos of Walther on T-Shirts – what can I say? How many cases of German beer do ya’ll need to get silly? 😉

  23. Posted April 14, 2011 at 12:40 am | Permalink


    Really, How far away are we before the folks from XXX church or The Hookers for Jesus get a seat at the table at TGC?? Maybe one popular Crossway book away? After all, Mark Driscoll, the emerging church’s cussing pastor is one of their poster boys. The Mars Hills Folks post Driscoll messages that have a NC-17 ratings. I sure you can find links to the Mars Hiil and his Resurgence Blog there.

    God Bless

  24. Lily
    Posted April 14, 2011 at 7:35 am | Permalink

    Hi Joe,

    I’m not making light of the seriousness of the situation but of the GC behavior. Lutheran polemics include humor to lighten things up and keep us sane. I’m a poor specimen when it comes to polemics, but Lutheran polemics are not for the faint of heart and can look quite un-Christian to outsiders. Humor not only gives us relief from the intensity of the situation, but can be part of making a point to the opposing side in disagreements (eg: GC is treating the truth like porn and acting like prima donnas?)

    What I see the GC doing fits the pietist pattern. Isn’t it all about good experiences and warm fuzzies to validate their Christianity? They are so legalistic about never experiencing anything negative that there is no room for polemics and even the milder variety of debates aren’t “nice.” Pietists need to keep up appearances and don’t care about their doctrine enough to defend it. Confessionals will fight to the death in defense of the gospel. Kinda telling difference between pietists and confessionals – ya think?

    And we NEED beer and silliness to lighten things up! Anywho, that’s the rough and tumble, rowdy Lutherans for ya. 😉

  25. Justin Taylor
    Posted April 14, 2011 at 8:46 pm | Permalink

    I have to confess that I find conspiracy theories like this strangely entertaining. Thanks for posting!


  26. Lily
    Posted April 15, 2011 at 5:15 am | Permalink

    Justin Taylor,

    When the emphasis in orthodoxy is shifted, a new theology is produced. As of yet, you have failed to recognize this. When you are able to recognize how liberation theology, feminism’s women pastors, the social gospel, pietism, and other such ilk changed the emphasis in orthodoxy and left the ancient path, perhaps then, you will be able to see the problem.

  27. RL Keener
    Posted April 15, 2011 at 11:28 am | Permalink


    Is it not true that links to Old Life are blocked at GC sites?


  28. Posted April 15, 2011 at 3:06 pm | Permalink


    These are facts

    1. The GC folks pulled the DeYoung post and to only re-posted four days later after people criticized them for it.

    2. The GC are blocking links and trailbacks to the Old Life Blog and not other sites. [including my own]

    Nothing Conspiratorial about this.

    When Confessional Folks have a problem with The Big Tent type Christianity that organizations like The Gospel Coalition promotes, we speak up. It’s too bad that more aren’t as outspoken as Dr. D. G. Hart.

  29. Posted April 15, 2011 at 3:26 pm | Permalink


    I did realize you were using satire in that statement.

    I guess was trying to communicate that to GC Folks that D.G. Hart is worst than porn, because they already promote Driscoll [again who has NC-17 messages on his sites]. That the XXX church and the Hookers for Jesus are perhaps a Crossway best seller from having a seat at the table too.

    After all, isn’t the true agenda of The Gospel Coalition and the other Celebrity Driven Conferences is networking and selling books & merchandise?

  30. Lily
    Posted April 15, 2011 at 5:56 pm | Permalink

    Hi Joe,

    Many thanks for the clarification and my apology for misunderstanding you. You really made me chuckle at the idea of Old Life being seen as worse than porn! After finally listening to the entire panel discussion at the conference – my best guess is that they want to avoid debating Old Life because their dogma is indefensible. But, on the other hand – isn’t pietism always a mask for doctrinal indifference?

    I cannot say that the agenda of GC and other conferences are about selling books/etc. since that is beyond anything I could know. The men I am semi-familiar with seem to believe what they teach. My complaint is their dogma and their influence to lead not only laity but other pastors astray. After listening to the panel discussion, my concerns have trebled.

  31. "Michael Mann"
    Posted April 16, 2011 at 6:27 am | Permalink

    “After all, isn’t the true agenda of The Gospel Coalition and the other Celebrity Driven Conferences is networking and selling books & merchandise?”

    Ouch! Tone down the truth a little, would ya?

    I sometimes forget to apply Proverbs 33:2, “Follow the money.” It’s pretty reliable.

  32. Justin Taylor
    Posted April 16, 2011 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    Joe writes:

    1. The GC folks pulled the DeYoung post and to only re-posted four days later after people criticized them for it.

    2. The GC are blocking links and trailbacks to the Old Life Blog and not other sites. [including my own]

    Neither are true. As Kevin explains in a comment above, he was pre-scheduling the posts and accidentally hit send ahead of time. And the OldLife trackback got stuck by a spambot. It was released as soon as the TGC guys were informed of it. But conspiracy theories are always more entertaining than boring old simple explanations and reality!

  33. Posted April 16, 2011 at 11:12 am | Permalink

    Thanks for the explanation, Justin. I’m not sure you want to go too far with the boring argument since it seems that part of the Gospel Coalition’s appeal is that it is a lot more exciting than my ordinary pastor and my ordinary Lord’s Day.

  34. Posted April 16, 2011 at 9:33 pm | Permalink


    I missed earlier Kevin’s comments, even so. Let’s see, Kevin’s post also gets accidentally posted on his Facebook page in the notes section too? A post that addresses conversations that have been critical of the GC and on a blog, which the author is very critical of the GC. Oh yeah, the GC accidentally has the blog’s URL flagged as spam. Dang, last Friday Night I should have played the Mega Millions lotto, My quick pick cash option would have just as likely hit. Since, last Friday was the day of perfect storm circumstances.

  35. Justin Taylor
    Posted April 18, 2011 at 8:16 am | Permalink

    This is what I love about conspiracy theorists: no explanation of reality ever satisfies. There is always a Deeper Hidden Agenda. FYI: Kevin (like me) has it set up so that when the blog post is published it is simultaneously sent to Facebook.

  36. Posted April 18, 2011 at 9:28 am | Permalink


    I am fairly certain that there is no conspiracy going on over at the GC, but if and when Glen Beck starts parsing out the shadowy and little known black ops unit sponsored by GC’s hard line transformationalists who are intent on making Christianity more prominent in the arts scene with arrows and pictures of Picasso, Kuyper and Lenin on his chalkboard all bets are off! Especially if he starts crying, cause then we know Glen means business.

    All joking aside, at the very least DeYoung discussed the relevancy of confessionalism to the church today. It’s a discussion that the GC affiliates should take seriously. I think that the YRR crowd doesn’t understand the quiet power of churches who take the spirituality of the church and Word and sacrament seriously. When we start to see that the impetus for all Christian growth starts with what God has done for us, and how he feeds us with his own hand week in and week out, some of the chronic dilemmas of ‘how do we get our congregants to grow?’ are quieted. This is because God has made a way for his people to grow that doesn’t depend on novelty on part of the minister or self-started devotion of the congregant. At a minimum I am glad to see confessionalism discussed, and I hope to see more of it on the GC blog.

  37. Posted April 18, 2011 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Justin, but what is it about Gospel Coalition folks that disregards questions about excitement and boredom?

  38. Posted May 2, 2012 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

    Whereabouts in are you from? teene model linda Ok so that was pretty hot. Until the VERY end. That dude was way too creepy when he came. Yikes!

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>