My Two Cents on the T4G Conference

Last week I had the opportunity to take in the Together for the Gospel Conference in Louisville, Kentucky (mp3's are available here). I've heard and read the seven speakers, but I was both eager and curious to hear them in person. While there, I also enjoyed meeting Bob and Tim Bixby, renewing acquaintances with Ben Wright and other "blasts from the past" and catching up with my big brother, Jeff, who flew in from Colorado. Here are some initial reflections:

As a Christian, I was stirred. I was moved by the "Truth-focus" of the worship. Although (or, better, because) Bob Kauflin was put in a straightjacket regarding the instrumentation and selection of songs, the worship was both theologically sound and stylistically reverent. There was a blessed passion about the singing. Honestly. The songs selected were filled with truth about our great sin and Christ's great sacrifice, and men sang at the tops of their voices–not to compete with a praise band (only a piano accompanied us) and not because they had been stirred to a frenzy by a leader (Kauflin was generally invisible and inconspicuous), but because they were challenged by Biblical truth and were thrilled to be able to respond in song. For example, the highlight of the congregation's singing of Just As I Am It Is Well–for once in my life!!–was not the sound, or the "echoes" in the chorus, or the song's heritage, but the amazing truth that "My sin, not in part, but the whole, is nailed to His cross and I bear it no more!!!"

Quick rabbit trail: As I compared the simplicity and beauty of the singing with the raucous (rock-us?) sounds that came from the sound system between sessions and which every attendee took home via a gift CD from Sovereign Grace (they shouldn't have), I was left shaking my head: why would a man and fellowship capable of heart-stirring worship like we experienced stoop to such distracting and irreverent music like this? That aside, my heart was encouraged and I was genuinely edified.

As a Pastor, I was challenged. I appreciated the clear proclamation and defense of the Gospel message. I was rebuked that much of my preaching neglects the central place of the Gospel–not only for the lost, but also for believers. I appreciated the examples of and exhortations to expository preaching. I admired the warm-hearted scholarship of Ligon Duncan as he hit a home run with his message on Preaching from the OT. (Listen to that one. Wow.) I was convicted by Piper's passionate call for serious-mindedness regarding the Gospel ministry. In my brother's words, it was as though a man battling cancer had reached out of his own coffin to shake us into sobriety. I was convicted by Mahaney's call for genuine humility and self-watch.

As a Fundamentalist, I was encouraged. I was glad to see many fundamentalist leaders in attendance, not because it indicates some sort of "new middle" between fundamentalism and evangelicalism (for I don't believe it does), but because I believe that there is much good that we can learn from the seven speakers. I was encouraged to speak with some of these men about the many positives of the conference and its sessions. I believe–I hope–that their presence, like my own, did not indicate a softening of separatist conviction, but rather indicates an honest admission that these men are not our enemies, that although we differ from them regarding some crucial issues and will therefore refuse cooperation with them, we recognize the truth when we hear it, are thankful for it, and are willing to learn those who teach it. I was glad to hear from fundamental leaders who had the same perspective.

Frankly, I was envious of some of what I saw and heard: the clear understanding of the Gospel, the intentional focus on the Gospel as the "main thing," the passion for truth, the fervency of the theologically-based worship. These elements are, I fear, too often lacking in the fundamental movement which I agree with and love. Most of what took place at this conference rings true in hearts and minds of those who love Christ and the Gospel. To deny such would be sectarian, indeed. The conference was a blessing in these ways.

As a Separatist, I was struck by a number of things.

First, as Ben points out on His blog, I noticed the obvious lack of separatism, even when dealing with those who are not "Together" with them regarding the Gospel. Was I surprised? Of course not. Most of these men have gone on record saying that they don't believe that separation from disobedient brothers is a biblical mandate. Some have written off separatism as a dead or dying idea. Yet, their posture toward broad evangelicalism was interesting to me. Unless I'm mistaken, each of the seven speakers severely criticized evangelicalism, often unmercifully. Here are some examples:

• Mohler spoke of "squishy evangelicalism," then quipped, "but I repeat myself."
• Mohler stated that we were "meeting in the midst of a very tepid evangelicalism."
• Duncan said, "Clearly, evangelicalism in America is antinomian in its nature."
• Piper lamented that church growth experts are urging preachers to lighten up. He bemoaned the slapstick services that are all too common today. He recalled a time in his own denomination's meetings when the convicting work of the Spirit was intentionally broken by the speaker's use of a pun. He ridiculed the frivolity of Veggie Tales, apparently as a representative of the lightness of evangelicalism in general.
• One speaker–Sproul, if memory serves–complained that evangelicalism has all too often lost "the evangel."

I was glad to hear it. Yet, they all stopped short of calling for the breaking of fellowship with those who are distorting the Gospel and ignoring sound doctrine. Why? Well, I imagine that for some–especially for the denominational men–it may be because the worst of the errors of evangelicalism are rampant within their own fellowships, specifically the SBC, PCA and BGC. They admit (and lament) as much. What they don't do is take the next step: separating from these men and organizations, be it through a "come out" separatism or a "put out" separatism. I'm not suggesting that they have never done so, but they have not done so or called for the same as a consistent policy or as a biblical mandate. And I believe that this is their Achilles heal.

The other point that struck me is that these remarkably intelligent and insightful men don't seem to realize (or at least did not mention) the fact that this "tepid evangelicalism" did not fall from the sky. There is a cause of the current state of evangelicalism–a trigger–and it is the inclusivism, non-separatism and gospel-ignoring social activism of the early new evangelicals who are the fathers of today's motley crew. The apple hasn't fallen far from the tree, but has since rolled on down the hill. While I genuinely admire the willingness of these seven men to fight against the errors that seem to have taken over evangelicalism, I wish they would consider from whence it arose–specifically, from a repudiation of separation.

Finally, as a Young Man, I was concerned. First, I was and am concerned that older fundamentalists have sometimes misrepresented these men (think "MacArthur is a heretic") and have ignored the fact that they are offering much good meat. I fear that some have so misrepresented these men and others like them that when fundamentalists of my generation have discovered that most of what these men say is right, they are prone to write off fundamentalism and separatism as dishonest and out of touch. I lament the fact that fundamentalism has too often black-balled these men rather than teaching discernment by pointing out their strengths and warning of their errors. (Michael Riley's just treatment of Piper's ministry is an excellent example of what this should look like.)

Second, I was and am concerned that younger fundamentalists are prone to the opposite error of imbibing the meat of these men's ministries without carefully finding and eschewing the bones. Whereas our forebears may have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, many of us appear ready to pour the bathwater into the crib along with the baby. Apparently, it's not enough to learn from these men; too many, IMO, are becoming enamored with them. Whereas our forebears refused to acknowledge their strengths, we are ignoring or explaining away their weaknesses.

For my part, I don't see these men as "the Big Bad Wolf." Not at all. However, I don't think they are "Grandma" either, Little Red Riding Hood. I call on my peers and on fundamental students to read these men and profit from their sound teaching, but to do so with caution; to appreciate these men for their tremendous contributions, but to carefully discern their errors; to "grow up" and get over what can sometimes be a boyish "crush" on these men, and learn that appreciation and non-cooperation can co-exist, and in this case, should.

The defense of the Gospel these men are making in speech and in print is a blessing. By God's grace, I pray– I honestly pray–that they will follow through by defending the Gospel which they love in practice, as well, by coming out from the midst of error. In the meantime, I pray that fundamentalists will have the integrity to acknowledge and appreciate these men's contributions while also maintaining the conviction to hold firmly to biblical principles of separation.