The final version of the T4G manifesto is out. I should take Josh’s advice and just ignore it. But I can’t. A representative of my own denomination has signed on to it. Many others would join in. I’m implicated. I can’t sign it. I appeal to the 10 Rules. Three of them apply:

3. If your doctrine leads you to cut yourself off from everyone but like 9 others, you’re wrong.
...
9. If you say you believe something and qualify the hell out of it, you’re wrong.
...
10. If your version of the Gospel isn’t actually good news, you’re wrong.

The T4G statement/confession/declaration of war/whatever starts off with a preamble that is the equivalent of a high ankle sprain:

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.

Okay, the “brothers” spring out of the gate and do not hesitate to let us know what they’re against. I mean what they’re for. They’re for the gospel…which apparently means they’re against lots of other stuff. Guys, see Rules 3 and 10. Your opening paragraphs break both of them.

Furthermore, confusion over crucial questions concerning the authority of the the Bible, the meaning of the Gospel, and the nature of truth itself have gravely weakened the church in terms of its witness, its work, and its identity.

Now this comes after the lament over pragmatism, technologies, self-help therapy and “managing” church. If all we were to do was list these things we’re agin, well, I’m agin ‘em, too. But then we come to the passage quoted above: Furthermore... Wow, I thought we were already in deep doo-doo. There’s more? Yes, Virginia, there’s confusion over crucial questions. Hmmm. That sounds odd. I can understand confusion over purported answers to questions a, b and c. But confusion over the questions? There’s nothing at all confusing about those questions. I like them. They are 50,000-watt beacons of clarity. The first two are questions which have answers that are, obviously, historically relative. That’s good because we need to explain what the authority of the Bible is today and what the gospel means today. Both answers are at least a little different than what might have been proposed in the 19th century, the Enlightenment, the Thirty Years War, the birth of the Reformation, the Conciliar movement, the drawn-out schism in Chalcedonian Christianity, etc. If we’re not actually talking to anyone today, then what’s the point of making a grand show in a once-luminous magisterial nightgown that is getting more than a little historically threadbare?

Now you really don’t want bring up confusion over crucial questions concerning (...) the nature of truth itself, do you? DO you? You’ve already got the Scholastic answer (adequatio) and you have no intention of really examining that, do you? No, I didn’t think so. The place gets trashed once you let the philosophers in. Just stick to that armchair and keep coaching with those serious intonations. Your players must find it convincing.

The Nature of Truth Itself. True Truth, Truly, Totally. giggle I’m sorry, I just can’t get this image out of my head. One of the fellers reads this line in his best Gregory Peck: “the nature of truth itself!” There’s a moment of awkward silence around the table. Then one of them spews his coffee (probably Mahaney) and all of them roll on the floor laughing for 15 minutes. I mean, really. What is that line doing in a theological confession/whatever?

Now all this confusion over crucial questions have [sic] gravely weakened the church? That sounds serious, indeed. So…what’s “the church” you’re talking about? Or “true Gospel church” or “faithful Gospel congregation” as you sometimes put it? Are Lutherans in? Anglicans? Plymouth Brethren? Methodists? Mennonites? OCA? Copts? (Chalcedon doesn’t really count anyway, right?) Roman Catholics? I guess we’ll need to see what we mean by the “true gospel” to see if any of these might qualify for a true gospel church.

So. What is “the Gospel,” or “the Gospel of Jesus,” or “the Gospel of Jesus Christ” that you mention so frequently in the statement?

In Article VII, you affirm the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Christ as essential to the Gospel. That comports quite well with 1 Corinthians 15. So, looking back at what constitutes a “true gospel church,” I suppose all of those I mentioned qualify. Yay! Good job, fellers.

Well, the euphoria won’t last long, will it? In the denials of Section VII, you claim that compromising the substitutionary character of Christ’s atonement for sin [causes] serious injury to the Gospel. Now how does one go about “compromising” substitutionary atonement? By what metric can we ascertain whether I or another has “compromised” on this issue? It’s fundamentally vague and confusing, a weapon-word to wield subjectively. Why break Rule 9? Don’t do that. The rest of the denials in this section, the ones about Jesus being “visible” exclusively in either weakness or power are over the head of this theological bumpkin. You lost me there, fellers.

Where were we? Oh, yes: the gospel! In Article VIII, you affirm that the Gospel is revealed to us in doctrines that most faithfully exalt God’s sovereign purpose to save sinners and in His determination to save his redeemed people by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, to His glory alone.

Eh, we seem to be trying to tighten the belt a little bit on 1 Corinthians 15, don’t we? Since this is supposed to be the “gospel of Jesus,” can we look back at the synoptics (Mark 1:1 ff might be a good place to start) and recognize what Jesus was preaching in these well-known sola-centric terms? The Acts of the apostles? Are you talking about “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ?” The gospel of Ephesians 3? Colossians? 2 Timothy?

Can I still be on Team Monergism and question that the gospel is most clearly revealed in doctrines that affirm the eternal decree? Is there a linkage? Sure, I’ll go with you there. Honestly, though, on its own terms, that linkage looks pretty obscure and abstract. The centrality of God’s grace? Absolutely. But let’s not de-incarnate or de-humanize Christ just to score theological points. May I suggest (in all candor) that you re-read Aquinas? If you would, just go ahead and donate that anthology to a needy first-year. Then drop a few clams to get the whole Summa. You’ll see how well the Dumb Ox moves from the abstract and impersonal considerations of “sovereign grace” in the Prima Pars to its concrete and personal aspects in the Tertia Pars. Go ahead. We’ll wait.

Article XII is also sola-centric. You affirm that sinners are justified only through faith in Christ, and that justification by faith alone is both essential and central to the Gospel. Now that sounds very serious indeed: “essential and central.” If I look at the Scriptures in toto, would I come to your formulation of what is “essential and central” to the gospel? Am I allowed to ask that question? You see, it’s stated so strongly here that even in my bumbling, muddled way, I do recall the equally strong statement of Article VII: the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Christ [is] essential to the Gospel. Can sola fide and 1 Corinthians 15 both be essential to the gospel? Sure!

Now I have to ask: what makes sola fide more “central” to the gospel than the death, burial, and bodily resurrection of Christ? Can both be central to the gospel? Well…that seems confusing, or at the very least, controversial. Centers are points that don’t admit more than one thing. Does the gospel perfectly rotate, revolve around sola fide, or for that matter, the forensic character of the disputation between God and man that is implied by this doctrine? One can imagine that if that aspect of the gospel were eliminated, there would be cause for protest. But do the times really call for that? Are we magnifying a historially relative matter to such a degree that it swallows up the gospel of the kingdom and the fully-orbed good news? I think we need to be very circumspect with our concepts that purport to capture what is “essential” or “central” to the gospel. We may be left fumbling with anachronisms substituted for the gospel preached by Jesus and the apostles. So what is this gospel we’re together for again?

We deny that any teaching that minimizes, denies, or confuses justification by faith alone can be considered true to the Gospel.

“Denies”? You bet. Right there with ya. “Minimizes” or “confuses”? There we go again: more of those vague, relative, weapon-words again. Calling out three possible ways to fall short in one’s teaching on sola fide indicates a great deal of confidence in this denial. The “minimizes” and “confuses” here, and the “compromises” back in Article VII, are indefensible bluster. The choice of woolly terms with which to fill one’s subjective will obscures (barely) some none-too-pleasant ultimatum directed at the rest of Christendom.

In my view, the zeal expressed in this statement/confession/declaration of war/whatever is not so much for “the” gospel (or for anything, for that matter) as it is an case study of Rule 3. It starts with a high ankle sprain by leaving open the definition of the church and the gospel to be determined by the sum total of the “statement.” Happily, it manages to hobble onto the stage in the affirmation of the gospel in Article VII. Unfortunately, the concept of the church and the gospel get mangled in what follows. If the remainder of the “statement” were stage directions, then what unfolds beginning with the denials in Article VII is a gradually shrinking key light on the crippled guy with his back to the audience and the other actors, who’s shouting the same two lines of monologue at the backdrop while other dialogue and action are going on all around him. It’s not clear whether he doesn’t want to share the stage or whether he isn’t aware there are other actors on the stage with him “together for the gospel.”