Is it just me, or has a pattern emerged among the leaders of the Gospel Coalition – namely, to regard Reformed Protestants as extreme?
First, Ray Ortlund compared TR’s to the Judaizers in Paul’s Galatia.
The Judaizers in Galatia did not see their distinctive – the rite of circumcision – as problematic. They could claim biblical authority for it in Genesis 17 and the Abrahamic covenant. But their distinctive functioned as an addition to the all-sufficiency of Jesus himself. Today the flash point is not circumcision. It can be Reformed theology. But no matter how well argued our position is biblically, if it functions in our hearts as an addition to Jesus, it ends up as a form of legalistic divisiveness.
Then came Tim Keller who riffed on Martin Lloyd Jones to warn against what Reformed Protestants are known for – arguing about doctrine:
However, whenever Lloyd-Jones takes up the importance of doctrine, he always points out that there is a danger on the other extreme. He speaks of some Christians and says “There is nothing they delight in more than arguing about theology” and they do this in “a party spirit” (p. 24). One of the signs of this group is that they are either dry and theoretical in their preaching, or they can be caustic and angry. They have “lost their tempers, forgetting that by so doing they were denying the very doctrine which they claimed to believe” (p. 24). In short, ministers who go to this extreme destroy the effectiveness of their preaching. What is the cause of this? Lloyd-Jones answers that they have made accurate doctrine an end in itself, instead of a means to honor God and grow in Christ-likeness. “Doctrine must never be considered in and of itself. Scripture must never be divorced from life” (p. 25).
And now John Piper warns against the tendencies of pride among the Reformed.
Reformed people tend to be thoughtful. That is, they come to the Bible and they want to use their minds to make sense of it. The best of them want to make sense of all of the Bible and do not pick and choose saying, “I don’t like that verse. That sounds like an Arminian verse, so we will set it aside.” No! Fix your brain, don’t fix the Bible.
The kind of person that is prone to systematize and fit things together, like me, is wired dangerously to begin to idolize the system. I don’t want to go here too much, because I think the whiplash starts to swing the other direction, and we minimize the system, thinking, and doctrine to the degree that we start to lose a foothold in the Bible. . . .
Hanging on with the danger I am speaking of is pride—a certain species of pride. There are many species of pride, and this is just one of them. You can call it intellectualism. There is also emotionalism, but that isn’t the danger we are talking about right now. Intellectualism is a species of pride, because we begin to prize our abilities to interpret the Bible over the God of the Bible or the Bible itself.
This is a strange tendency with the Gospel Coalition since in the evangelical world, GC draws much more from the Reformed than the Wesleyan side of adherents. The only explanation can be that hanging around with Reformed-leaning types the way that Ortlund, Keller, and Piper do, they apparently do not want to be confused with the mean, proud, or idolatrous type of Reformed Protestant. This explanation gains plausibility when you consider that Lutherans and Dispensationalists are not too shabby when it comes to doctrine and intellectualism. And yet, no one seems to bring these Protestants up, even though the United States has many more Lutherans and Dispensationalists than it does Reformed Protestants. (Compare the enrollment at Dallas Seminary to both Westminsters, or membership in the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod to the PCA and the OPC combined!!!)
What is bothersome about this constant refrain of “Reformed meanies†is the failure of Ortlund, Keller, and Piper to acknowledge that the Reformed faith came to these men and their libraries (not to mention their communions in the case of Keller), not through avoiding extremes but by way of contending militantly for the faith. If we didn’t have belligerents like Bullinger, Ursinus, Knox, Erskine, Hodge, or Van Til, we would not have a Reformed faith from which to draw, no matter how moderately we try to do it. And the reverse is also true: when Reformed Protestants are not militant, that faith withers and eventually dies.
In which case, when will the Gospel Coalition folks understand that moderation leads to equivocation?
Old Life 
Well, I’m not sure I follow. Could not their criticisms be pointed towards QIRC rascals? Indeed, I would expect Gospel Coalition arrows to, occasionally, strike the same targets that R. S. Clark arrows strike.
LikeLike
It doesn’t seem that Ortlund, Keller, and Piper are all quite saying the same thing. Regardless of that, I’m not quite sure I understand what you are saying, Dr. Hart. Scripture does say we ought to “speak the truth in love.” Scripture is replete with warnings against pride. Isn’t it possible that many Reformed folk are arrogant when discussing doctrine? Shouldn’t we be concerned about that? And can’t one be concerned about that without disregarding the wonderful doctrinal formulations from the Reformers and their descendants?
LikeLike
Maybe you should stop being so mean then, Dr. Hart 🙂
There is always a tendency to make idolatry out of our best attributes. The intelligent idolize IQs, the strong, their strength, the beautiful, their good looks, the rich their stuff, etc. We Reformed aren’t typically strong or beautiful since we understand those things don’t matter. It’s all gonna burn, right? But we take our smarts to the next life, and consequently, we like those. And smarts usually bring cash, so we’re rich too. But this is merely an accidental use of smarts, not their primary use, which is to help us defeat people who are wrong on the internet. 🙂
For real though, I would like to see a basic stat for blogs like this one or Clark’s or Wilson’s, which grouped each post into two basic categories: Positive and Negative. Obviously, there would be a mixture of both in most posts, and even more obviously, I am not suggesting we never be negative. But I would like to see how often these blogs submit something to their readers that is solely positive (like exposition of scripture, quoting of a beautiful, ancient hymn, or some other form of encouragement), versus submissions that are in any way an attack on a person or view they reject. I fear some brothers’ claim to fame is in the latter category…
LikeLike
Piper sounds like a lot of Lutherans I know who like to characterize the Reformed as viewing all of scripture through “the eyes of logic” instead of letting some would-be paradoxes stand unexplained (letting God be God, as they say it). And, as you point out, they can’t seem to see some of there own attempts to do exactly the same thing.
LikeLike
They all seem to be saying slightly different things – and at least with Piper, it seems to be simply an attempt to point out the idolatry that people with personalities wired like him might be prone to.
LikeLike
It is a very difficult thing to contend for and defend the faith in a proper way. We are all called to do it but only a very few are able to do it in an effective way to those of their time. We no doubt equivocate and dumb down in order to not cause too many waves and controversy. Only the most courageous, moral and well prepared do it with great effect. They need our support not our criticism. Thank God for the raising up of these sorts- they are few and far between. Their end is to be spit on and ostrasized- even though they may have periods of acceptance and great support. At least, that is the way I read the scriptures and I am quite often wrong.
LikeLike
Dr. Hart,
I agree with you.
Now that the GC is introducing women preachers to the conference, this moderate tendency will only continue to grow (and fester).
Ron Smith,
I try and do as you said. I feel the tendency to be polemic, as there is so many opportunities for it. It can become one’s MO very easily. But, good Biblical exposition does very often begin with a critique, even as the Apostle Paul said, “we tear down strongholds…”.
Blessings,
Chris
LikeLike
There’s probably truth in what you say … but even if there’s a little injustice in the singling out of Reformed Christianity for criticism concerning intellectual pride, isn’t the best response to own it to the extent that it’s true, and ignore it to the extent that it’s not? Responding with a tone of defensive argument can only add to the perceptions (justified or not) of intellectual pride and arrogance.
LikeLike
It is kind of odd that these gentleman wish to educate the Reformed about idolatry when they think they can pastor whole cities…. nay whole nations
LikeLike
And who (or which Church) is contending militantly for the Reformed Faith today?
The situation is precisely that we already have moderate and equivocal Presbyterian and Reformed congregations and denominations.
Where can a faithful Confessional Presbyterian church be found?
Any help?
LikeLike
The Gospel Coaliton looks like an intriguing love fest for evangelical leaders and their fans. The comments of Piper and Keller are helpful for leaders of any denomination and indeed all believers, but it is becoming more common for such leaders to use the word Reformed in a negative connotation. They have milked the Reformed idea for what it is worth, and are now moving on in their pilgrimage.
Keller keeps company with and commends some distinctly odd types, like Bill Hybels and NT Wright as well as bouncy charismatics. Don Carson especially likes to work with pentecostal friends. This isn’t a cheap shot at the latter group; they have gradually in the last decade or so being accepted by evangelical circles in a way which makes me wonder if they have really thought through the theology and flakey practises of the charismatics; are they really thinking at all, or are they just dazzled by the trendy, cool guys like Driscoll? Perhaps both groups are joining up in these lean times for traditional evangelicals, but they are actually becoming more like the bouncy types in so many ways with their worship and love of charismatic teachers. But I have digressed.
The main problem with this personality driven set up of a para church movement is that the word Reformed in it’s application by members of the coalition has become seriously detached from it’s roots. So, CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll exhibit the ‘New Calvinism’ which has got them such a big following while they advocate tongues etc. and few if any of their GC pals openly question this. Would Calvin and other Reformers have worked with Anabaptists, the Reformation equivalent of the charismatics? No, they worked and argued with clear reasoning against such groups. Perhaps politeness and group affirmation is more important in the GC. This whole movement is a classic evangelical tactic – earnest and sincere no doubt, but it begs a far greater critique based on incisive logic.
LikeLike
Paul says: “The main problem with this personality driven set up of a para church movement is that the word Reformed in it’s application by members of the coalition has become seriously detached from it’s roots. So, CJ Mahaney and Mark Driscoll exhibit the ‘New Calvinism’ which has got them such a big following while they advocate tongues etc. and few if any of their GC pals openly question this. Would Calvin and other Reformers have worked with Anabaptists, the Reformation equivalent of the charismatics? No, they worked and argued with clear reasoning against such groups. Perhaps politeness and group affirmation is more important in the GC. This whole movement is a classic evangelical tactic – earnest and sincere no doubt, but it begs a far greater critique based on incisive logic.”
What does one make of Horton then participating in the 12 cities and 12 conversations seminars? Just because someone is seen with charismatics, “New Calvinists”, or others they do not agree with theologically at group gatherings does not mean that they are in alliance with them. I am not sure you can get away from those who have “charismatic” personalities either. I do not think one can say that both Luther and Calvin did not have a certain amount of charisma in their ministries. That goes with the turf of those who are called to speak to their generations. If they did not have a certain amount of charisma no one would listen to them. The Word of God when spoken with accuracy and authority (The pure Law and the pure Gospel) contains power and charisma in it. People’s personalities and ego’s certainly get in the way, and that should be confronted among leaders (which is difficult to do no doubt and that is where courage comes in), but what are we to expect in this fallen world? As the Apostle fall often stated- whether in pretense or in truth the Gospel is proclaimed and with that I rejoice.
LikeLike
People today have a tendency to associate strength of conviction with arrogance. This is simply wrong. I think, Dr. Hart, that you’ve hit the nail on the head with your comment about equivocation. We’re often far too concerned that we might upset someone by speaking the truth.
LikeLike
I meant the Apostle Paul not the Apostle fall
LikeLike
Let me add that it is not easy to discern the difference between a Gnostic type of charisma and power and the type of authority and power that comes from the pure preaching of the Law and the Gospel. It seems to me that this is where the confessions, creeds and catechisms become so important and why the Reformers put so much time in writing them. That is also why contending for and defending the faith is such a difficult matter. No one ever said this all would be easy. It gets very confusing and difficult to sort out.
LikeLike
Whenever a “coalition” is para-church there will always be a temptation to flatten out areas of disagreement in order to get more people into the tent. Perhaps that is why men who find their identity in particularly churches (like Al Mohler and Mark Dever) seem more capable of describing choices as “right” or “wrong” than those who identify more with evangelicalism, movements, or networks.
Here is an idea for a different sort of “Gospel-Coalition” – the OPC!
LikeLike
John: Thank you for your appreciated comments. I cannot find any information about what Mike Horton said at the 12 cities and 12 conversations seminars. Can you enlighten readers about this? Regarding Paul and charisma, 2 Corinthians 10:10 suggests Paul was actually mocked for his presence by some; charisma doesn’t seem to be a major concern for him. Coming back to the matter of your words:
“Just because someone is seen with charismatics, “New Calvinistsâ€, or others they do not agree with theologically at group gatherings does not mean that they are in alliance with them” I would say when Keller, Piper, Carson et. al share platforms with some the “New Calvinists” they do very much agree with their overall ministry.
Over the last decade the phrase ‘Reformed’ has become another evangelical catch all buzz word with little real application of it’s Reformation roots in every way. And finally, the GC’s web site is a dizzying display of personalities and movements. Oh, for a still small voice to cut through the evangelical noise! And what about the unsurprising emergence of women teachers/preachers for the 2011 GC conference? Any thoughts, anyone?
LikeLike
Paul, I can’t say that the women’s thing is surprising. When you are building coalitions, you broaden the boundaries. It happened in the mainline churches but somehow these evangelicals think “it can’t happen here.”
LikeLike
“I cannot find any information about what Mike Horton said at the 12 cities and 12 conversations seminars.”
http://www.whitehorseinn.org/archives/522.html
“Oh, for a still small voice to cut through the evangelical noise! And what about the unsurprising emergence of women teachers/preachers for the 2011 GC conference? ”
Women have spoken – in the past – at Ligonier and DG conferences, so the indicative thing in this case will be to see other speakers reactions to this, with some GC members seeing complementarity as an issue of first importance (Driscoll, Piper etc), I’d guess there is scope for some disagreement here.
LikeLike
Chris E. at oldlife we ask all references to Desiring God ministries be spelled out. D G Hart existed before Desiring God Ministries.
LikeLike
Well, isn’t it obvious? They are posting these because they (the New Calvinists) have been taking flak for their compromise. Keller I am sure wasn’t too happy with the criticism of various aspects of his eh.. ministry, not to mention his invitation to NT Wright. Piper has been criticized for his invitation of Doug Wilson in DesiringGod conference 2009, and now of Rick Warren in DesiringGod Conference 2010. Piper’s good pal Mark Driscoll has been criticized for his foul mouth, and of his promotion of Contemplative prayer and other mystical practices (something which Keller has been criticized for also).
So I see these as pieces of self-defence and self-justification.
LikeLike
RE David Boot: Here is an idea for a different sort of “Gospel-Coalition†– the OPC!
Yes, remembering officers enter the door by way of Confessional Subscription! No need for big personalities, we have a big Book, the Whole Counsel of God, to proclaim.
RE DGH: at oldlife we ask all references to Desiring God ministries be spelled out. D G Hart existed before Desiring God Ministries.
LOL (as the kids say).
LikeLike
Paul says: “Over the last decade the phrase ‘Reformed’ has become another evangelical catch all buzz word with little real application of it’s Reformation roots in every way. And finally, the GC’s web site is a dizzying display of personalities and movements. Oh, for a still small voice to cut through the evangelical noise!”
Even though I am a LCMS (Lutheran Church Missouri Synod) member I do stay abreast and am in frequent dialog with you Reformed and Presbyterian types. And, I might add, with great benefit and gratitude towards you all. I have read many of D.G. Hart’s books along with Scott Clark’s Recovering the Reformed Confessions and have been an avid Modern Reformation magazine reader since the early 90’s. So, my point is that I am familiar with what you are talking about. From what the scriptures say of Paul he was not the most charismatic of personalities but God did seem to bless his ministry with great charismatic power when he preached the Gospel and taught the whole counsel of God from the scriptures. The same could be said of Calvin. It seems that Luther probably did have a very charismatic personality. That really is irrelevant to what I was saying. I was using charisma in the sense of God working when the Gospel is proclaimed. The power is always in the Gospel when the Holy Spirit sovereignly moves in the hearers hearts and minds.
That there is a “dizzying display of personalities and movements” is just a reality that has to be dealt with. Paul seemed to handle it quite well among the Corinthians even though he did severely rebuke them in the letters he wrote to the Churches their. Chaos and disorder is what we frequently have to deal with and confront. Paul, Luther, Calvin, Machen and others dealt with it and that is really what made them such great voices to their generations. Unfortunately, the end of those who do this is not very rosy in this life- although they do get remembered in future generations and are no doubt having a great time in their heavenly appointed places- that is something we can be sure of.
LikeLike
I still inclined to read Piper’s link as a measure of his own humility, because of his identification with his audience. Having said that, I didn’t realise it was specifically directed at the ‘New Reformed’ crowd – and the danger here is that a movement which isn’t particularly theologically coherent to start with becomes even less so.
LikeLike
But don’t you see the value of moderation because then we can compare prosperity preacher Paula White with the more “evangelical” Arminian prosperity preacher Franklin Graham? https://hellochristian.com/5113-franklin-graham-the-lord-saved-us-from-a-godless-atheistic-agenda?fb_comment_id=1015093631934526_1015405645236658
Or is true that Richard Mouw is an improvement on John R Rice?
LikeLike
Orltund:— People who disagree with me are not only wrong but they are people who “need other people to be wrong” When I judge as Galatianists those who disagree with me about the gospel, this is not because I need them to be wrong. Nor do I criticize others as Galatianists because I am looking for someone to judge. I don’t do that. I don’t ever need other people to be wrong, so that’s why I can say they are wrong. I don’t ever look for other people to judge, which is why I can so freely accuse other people with Galatianism.
Now when other people compare themselves to other people, and call them sectarians, that’s nothing but a projection of their own self-hatred onto other people, but when I do it, it’s not .
2 kinds of people, the kind that says 2 kinds of people, and the kind that doesn’t.
2 Corinthians 10: 12 Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those who are commending themselves. But when they measure themselves by one another and compare themselves with one another, they are without understanding.
https://121youth.wordpress.com/2010/08/25/what-it-means-to-be-truly-reformed-by-ray-ortlund/
LikeLike
I would change what I said in this post back in 2010. I was attending a Lutheran Church at the time. I would not be so affirming of the confessional Reformed or the confessional Lutherans as I was in my comments in this post. I was still learning what the true and accurate biblical Gospel was. You do have to be taught what the Gospel is, what it accomplished, and exactly who Jesus died for before you can assent to it. And you won’t assent to it until God justifies you by the imputation into Christ’s death at the hearing of the Gospel. Trying to establish your own righteousness is an abomination to Gods redemptive plan in Christ and that is the sin we are most blind too.
LikeLike