Originally Posted by Andres

Originally Posted by Joseph Scibbe

I really took notice when he and Driscoll ganged up on Mark Dever about multi site churches by using numbers over Scripture. I instantly didn't like him after that.

But what about Driscoll? Are you only going to single out MacDonald for his pragmatism over scripture or isn't Driscoll just as guilty?

Certainly not, however, this discussion is about MacDonald. I can give my views on that video elsewhere but this didn't seem relevant. Sorry for not being clear.

Thabiti Anyabwile has written another helpful post regarding the underlying issues of both things like the Gospel Coaltion multi-site video that was recently brought up and all of the nonsense surrounding the ER2. You can read the whole thing here. I think he really hits the nail on the head. The root cause of the current downgrade in evangelicalism is pragmatism.

These bits are particularly good:

His thesis- "Not asking the why question and delving for a rock solid answer, leaves us open to pragmatism."

On multi-site churches- "That’s what I fear I see in the discussion about multi-site churches. They’re not from the devil, but they’re not clearly from the Bible either. And it seems to me, their adoption reflects the pragmatic concerns of 'how to handle growth' in some cases, or 'how to plant churches.' A really big 'how' squeezes out careful reflections on 'why.'"

On ER2- "Now, the other way pragmatism rears the ugly side of its head is by prematurely asking “Who?” That’s what I fear I see in the Elephant Room invitation of Jakes and others. In the course of last week’s events, the stated purpose of the Elephant Room morphed...."

Here's the kicker- "But what’s the real problem? It wasn’t their earlier purpose statement. The real problem was asking the “who” question before really taking heed to their original “why”–to foster unity among Christian leaders who differ methodologically. Had the organizers of the event stuck firmly to that why, rooted in a careful articulation of biblical command and precept, the “who” would have been dictated by the “why.” Jakes would never have appeared on the short list because a historically orthodox definition of “Christian” would have required clear adherence to the Trinity. But the pragmatic “who” superseded the foundational “why” with the resulting controversy that followed. We might also argue, as others have (here, here, here, and here), that a robust biblical answer to the why’s of pastoral ministry might have pre-empted the invitation of Noble and Furtick, whose ministry philosophies appear to depart significantly from biblical pastoral practice."

Finally, the question that really needs to be answered- "Why invite a man to share your platform who could not be an elder at a biblical church?"

Exactly!!! Noble, Furtick, and Jakes are disqualified from pastoral ministry (for various reasons) at any biblical church. Carl Trueman, Phil Johnson, and now Anyabwile have all pointed this out. And yet these men consistently (at least the former two) get a pass from broader evangelicalism because they have a large following.

Anyone know if Mark Dever has withdrawn from participating in the ER2?

He is no longer listed on their main page as a participant.

Mark Dever is a key figure in T4G and their statement of faith reads thus:

Article VI

We affirm that the doctrine of the Trinity is a Christian essential, bearing witness to the ontological reality of the one true God in three divine persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each of the same substance and perfections.

We deny the claim that the Trinity is not an essential doctrine, or that the Trinity can be understood in merely economic or functional categories.

That, I think, makes it abundantly clear where Dr. Dever stands on the issue. And if he has withdrawn his participation from ER2, I am truly thankful for his faithfulness.