A4G: Introduction part 1.

This is the first part of my detailed review of the statement from the inappropriately named "Together for the Gospel" conference. I am calling my version "Altogether for the Gospel" :-)

This is in response to Adrian's challenge. I am going to take a paragraph at a time.

We are brothers in Christ united in one great cause – to stand together for the Gospel. We are convinced that the Gospel of Jesus Christ has been misrepresented, misunderstood, and marginalized in many churches and among many who claim the name of Christ. Compromise of the Gospel has led to the preaching of false gospels, the seduction of many minds and movements, and the weakening of the church’s Gospel witness.

Given my other posts (see long list at the bottom of this one) it will not be a surprise that the 3rd word of this statement is a problem. Why "brothers"? Is this referring just to the 4 organisers? I guess so since they have signed the statement. But they seem to be wanting others to endorse it. As I read that my hackles immediately rise, I am already disgruntled and ready to nitpick at the rest of the statement.

Even those who believe in "Gender Distinctions" accept that the gospel applies to women as well as men and that they have a role to play in the kingdom of God (just that it is a limited role). So some positive  suggestions for the first sentence:

"We are sisters and brothers in Christ united in one great cause – to stand together for the Gospel."
or
"We are Christians united in one great cause – to stand together for the Gospel."

Now for the rest of this paragraph. Why is it that Evangelicals always have to sound so negative about everything? When we are introducing a statement about the Gospel, about Good News shouldn't we at least celebrate good news for one sentence at the beginning? Something like:

"We celebrate with Christians around the world and through the ages the Good News that is the Gospel. Good News that brings hope of forgiveness and new life through the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as revealed in the Bible".

Maybe we should start with a Biblical statement. How about Romans 1: 16-17?

'I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."'

Ok, so now we have a bit of good news in there, a declaration of our belief in what the gospel can do. Next is the state of the Church and it's witness to the gospel. Clearly this conference believes that it is going the right way and pretty much everyone else has compromised and is in for a sticky end. Although I consider myself an evangelical I do not feel comfortable with this simplistic condemnation of much of the Church. However, there is a long standing prophetic tradition in scripture and I would be comfortable with a prophetic call to the whole church to return to the gospel, to repent of all that hurts our witness (a reference to Ephesians 4: 1-6 might be appropriate).

Therefore my first draft of the "Altogether for the Gospel" statement of affirmations and denials paragraph 1 reads:

We are Christians united in one great cause - the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. We stand with Paul who wrote in Romans 1:16-17:

I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."

Our concern for the gospel and our desire to stand altogether for that gospel lead us to challenge the Church around the world where it falls short of the full gospel. We therefore call the church to repent for its failings to live and preach the gospel. We remind the Church of Ephesians 4: 1-6 where we read:

As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

We urge the Church to repent of its failings to live by this scripture and to commit itself again to its Lord through all aspects of its life and teaching.

H'mm, it is getting a bit long, especially given that was just the first paragraph. I'll come back to the introduction later - looks like this might be a long series :-)

Other posts that I have written relating to the "Together for the Gospel" conference and statement (these mostly focus on the gender issue):

• Adrian makes a brave offer.
• Still learning slowly.
• Bruce Ware on the Women Issue.
• Does hope only come from being naive?.
• Jollyblogger offers an olive branch.
• Uniting Christians who disagree.
• A positive statement of faith.
• Can you respect scripture and allow women to teach, lead, minister?.
• "It's a shame that - so far - response to the statement has focused almost entirely on the women's issue".
• Thank-you to some of the women in my life.
• Alltogether for the Gospel.
• Together for the gospel cartoon.
• Together or divided?.

[Update]

Corrected most (hopefully all) it's, its, ...
Updated the first sentence of the draft statement as per discussion below.

Comments

[Sally]

Good stuff Dave, I especially like the positive angle... we must try to make good news sound like good news!!!

A little aside- got that asignment in yet hmmmm? No? Me neither... ah well....

[Pam]

Dave, I know you monitor the posts to your blog, so if you don't want me ranting on your blog, feel free to not publish the following rant.

You are indeed right that the phrase "brothers for Christ" gives me the impression that, as a female Christian, I can just begger off as far as this group is concerned. Which is fine with me if we're talking about the "T4G" folk. I have the feeling that they would just call me a strident feminist, which as Dave and Sally know, is quite a hoot. But in an age when using non-inclusive language is not the norm but done to send a point, then the point is received.

I'm convinced that the Gospel has been misrepresented too. Only I doubt that the T4G folk would agree with my take on misrepresentation.

I think that the idea that "God loves everyone equally" has been turned into "God loves the elect better than others" and "I've admitted my sins and my repentance means that God was then able to respond and offer me forgiveness".

I think that the Gospel has been misrepresented as a code of ethics and conduct rather than an outrageous offer of forgiveness that no-one deserves. No one.

I think that the Gospel has been misrepresented as a code of purity. And I think that if God IS all about purity and that if we can keep the God's laws ourselves then that code of religion has no need for Jesus, for the cross or for the resurrection.

And this is why I'm an insidious, evil female preacher, because I preach God's outrageous offer of grace and forgiveness to everyone. (Pedantic point: for good or for evil, I don't believe in universal salvation, but I do believe in God's universal offer of salvation.)

[DaveW]

Pam,

I welcome your rants (personally I would call them insights or gems, but no accounting for taste).

And of course you know that I think we need more insidious, evil female preachers like you.

Go for it.

[Tim]

I like it, Dave, with this one caveat.

In the NT, does anyone 'stand for' the Gospel? I think I remember people being called to 'stand for' the faith once delivered to the saints, but 'standing for' the gospel? The gospel is proclaimed, celebrated, believed etc...

It may be insignificant. Then again, it may not be.

[Tim]

Oh - P.S. - there are a couple of places where you need to check your use of apostrophes! Sorry to be nitpicky...

[DaveW]

I hate apostrophe's, they are the work of the devil, anyone who believe's in them will go s'traight to hell. Aaarrrggghhh!

re standing for the gospel. Yeah see your point. We could say that the gospel stands for us!

How about "We are Christians united in one great cause - the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ"

[Tim]

Yeah - I like that a lot better...

[Pam]

Dave, thanks for taking up the challenge wrt the statement.

Now, as to how no one seems to be able to follow grammatical rules for plurals and possessives any more!!!!!.......;-)

[sally]

wot is this greammor stuff they is talkin abowt:;/?

Tim pleeze dont' check owt my greammor!!!

[Glenn Piper]

Hi,
You seem to be missing the point that as this was a gathering of (mainly) Elders/Pastors, and by the clear reading of scripture that leadership is to be male, the declaration at the end was actually addressed to those who were present at the conference and to other leaders.
In that context Brothers is quite appropriate.
The attempt to imply that the T4G leaders have a concept of the Gospel that is wrong is just too ridiculous for comment.

[DaveW]

Glen,

You are missing multiple points:

Yes there is a reading of scripture that gives male leadership. But there are other readings and these are accepted many many denominations and Churches that ordain and have been ordaining women for many years. Given this fact it is inappropriate to act as if all Church leaders are male, or as if that is the only valid interpretation of scripture.

200 years ago conservative Christians argued that slavery was biblical in very similar ways. Do you accept that interpretation was wrong? If so then you have to consider the possibility that huge numbers of churches and denominations that have examined this issue and chosen to ordain women MAY be right, therefore to claim an exclusively correct understanding of the gospel is what is ridiculous.

[Glenn Piper]

Dave, you still to be ignoring the fact that this is a statement that was addressed to those in attendance at this particular conference, so I maintain that the use of Brothers in that context is acceptable.
200 years ago not everyone thought that way.
Male leadership is in line with over 1900 years of church history.
Just because lots of people are wrong does not make something right. If it did we would all be non christian as there are more of those (non-christain)than there is of us (christian)
As the Bible is so clear on the issue of male leadership in the church (starting from before the fall) then, no,I cannot see how you MAY be right. You may not like it, but the Bible is very, very clear on this issue.

[Glenn Piper]

Hi Dave,
On another post you asked me for things that Ann Nyland had got wrong. I have replied and I am waiting for your response. (several days)

[DaveW]

Glen,

The statement was labelled "Together for the Gospel" and appears to be addressed to the whole church.

200 years ago enough people thought that way for many Churches to make Slavery part of their doctrines eg US Presbyterians among many. Many also rules that only white people could be ordained.

Male leadership is a tradition that goes back a long way. However, we believe that it is not true to scripture in the same was as we believe slavery is not true to scripture. There are many skilled and qualified people who demonstrate alternative interpretations of the key passages used to justify male leadership, there are also key passages that are ignored by those supporting male leadership.

You are absolutely wrong to say Scripture is so clear on this. Your interpretation is that it is clear, but that is only one interpretation and in the UK it is not an interpretation held by the majority of Denominations.