I’ve written 12 installments of a series on Relationship, but I’m taking a one post break today.  I’ve got other things to write on, but I want to finish the Relationship series as far as I want to take it.  I’m not done yet, so I’ll get back to it.  Look at part twelve for links to every part of the series.

*******************

At this year’s Shepherd’s Conference at John MacArthur’s and Phil Johnson’s Grace Community Church, prominent among conservative evangelicals, the normal panel discussion, a question and answer time, turned more tense than normal.  Phil Johnson hosted the panel, made up of him and Mark Dever (Southern Baptist pastor, 9 Marks, Washington, DC), Ligon Duncan (Presbyterian, Chancellor of Reformed Theological Seminary in Jackson, MS), Albert Mohler (president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, KY), Sinclair Ferguson (Professor at Reformed Theological Seminary, St. Peter’s Free Church pastor, Dundee, Scotland), and John MacArthur.

Phil took the discussion into the newest and biggest controversy in evangelicalism and now conservative evangelicalism, social justice or “wokeness,” that has become a factor of division among evangelicals.   MacArthur and Johnson have just led in the crafting and publication of The Statement on Social Justice & the Gospel.  They were concerned for the perversion or corruption of the gospel akin to other twisting or ruination of the gospel of previous eras that had invaded evangelicalism:  social gospel and then emergents.  I had watched this in a livestream that afternoon and I was surprised a how confrontational Johnson was and how “testy” things got in this conversation.

Johnson asked how far apart they were on the statement, since none of them had signed.  Dever said it was too broad a question.  He wanted to answer specifics.  MacArthur intervened to say that there was a lot of heat on the internet before the conference related to the differences between them on social justice, questioning why those on the panel would even be invited.  In part to that, MacArthur said the following:

I said, look these are my friends. These are men I love. These are men who serve Christ. They have given their life to him. God has given each of you guys a formidable place in the kingdom and you’ve all had an impact on my life.  I’ll fight error, but I don’t fight my friends. Why would I do that? I don’t want to become an island. My enemies have already eliminated me, if I get rid of my friends, I may have nobody but Phil.

The next statement I noticed was from Ligon Duncan, who wrote the foreward to an important book on the approval of a “Woke Church,” entitled Woke Church:

My concern on racial issues is that I do not drive our grandchildren into the arms of the LGBQTIA issue, where already our younger people don’t want to touch that issue, because they know that immediately it marginalizes them.

Phil Johnson said in response to more of what Duncan had said:

Wouldn’t you agree though that desire to get the culture to love and appreciate us is a pathological cancer on the evangelical movement? . . . I would say that’s the defining mark of big EVA (evangelicalism).

Visibly angry at the next question by Phil Johnson about social justice rhetoric at T4G and TGC, Mohler answered and at one point raised his voice:

I’m not going to be forced into a situation before thousands of people in which I have to say, I’m going to do it your way.  Sorry.  Okay, I’m just not.  And if that’s a test of fellowship amongst us, this would be a good time to find out.

This was the apex of the panel discussion, what has generated the most post-conference discussion by far, whole articles written about it (here, here, here, and here, interesting video discussion here, among many others).

Just listening to the conversation, it is easy to see how bad it is in the country if this is where it’s at in conservative evangelicalism.  They are afraid to say certain truth in public.  They are filtering themselves on issues that do relate to the gospel.  Common ground among the six is Calvinism, so what they call the “big God theology,” that is, the sovereignty of God.

I want to go one by one through the pieces I quoted.  First, MacArthur’s statement about why he couldn’t break from these men.  I’ve heard this before as a reason from evangelicals for not separating.  “I can’t separate from my friends, because then I’ll be alone.”  Jesus said, we might have to separate from our parents and our children.  He came not to bring peace, but bring a sword.  “I don’t want to become an island” isn’t a basis for disobedience to scripture, or sin.

Ligon Duncan talks about “big God theology,” but you really can’t push “converted grandchildren” into LGBQTIA, can you?  Isn’t that perseverance of the saints?  Or do we keep them by our humanistic or naturalistic means?  If we just preach a true gospel, we’ve solved that problem, right?  This is where I see a sort of revivalism or Finney-esque “new measures” among professing Calvinists.  Preach the truth in love.  Depend on God.  Stop pandering.

Almost all of the conservative evangelicals want to be very, very, very careful about things said in public, so that they don’t lose a generation or half of the evangelicals, as Mohler said.   If they’re actually saved, they can’t lose them, right?  Shouldn’t they be preaching that to the next generation?  They are either with you or they’re not with you.  This is why it’s concerning that people won’t just ‘come out’ and say the bold truth.  Not being truthful should be the concern.

A major aspect of the capitulation, the incrementalism to the left that Mohler mentions, is an unbiblical view of the church and of unity.  They are trying to keep together a large coalition, so that they won’t be alone, as MacArthur opined.  They shouldn’t be worrying about being alone.  Noah was alone.  Jeremiah was alone.  Just do right and then attempt to persuade with spiritual weaponry, the truth of God’s Word.  This is actually from which comes the “pathological cancer” that Phil Johnson talked about.  Because evangelicals have been feeding their constituents with the world as a means of pragmatism for church growth, including Grace Community, they have to “keep them how they won them.”  This really does clash with their Calvinism too.

Finally, Mohler asks if something is going to be a “test of fellowship.”  I thought that was very interesting “fundamentalist” language, test of fellowship. Mohler has heard it before.  Does any evangelical have a “test of fellowship”?  Evangelicals don’t even talk about separation, but MacArthur — after Mohler got testy with Johnson — said that a stand needs to come somewhere.  He was very ambiguous and they left that meeting with nothing, except they’ll still be friends, seemingly around, “we’re all Calvinists.”

Again though, Mohler brought in separation language.  That would bring me to the question to them, “so what are your tests for fellowship?”  That would have been an interesting follow-up question.  The gospel is being perverted all over evangelicalism, and they are losing, because they will not state a “test of fellowship.”  I call on them to do so.  Join Jesus outside the camp.