A Touch of Freud?
April 5, 2011
Over at the Gospel coalition, friend Justin Taylor links to an interview with Mark Noll on the historical strengths and weaknesses of parachurch coalitions. In the excerpt which he cites he gives the following quotation:
"Then, there is also the danger of schisms. As a broad coalition with differing views on church government, the sacraments, the gifts of the Spirit, and practices of ministry, there is always the danger of schisms over any of these items or something that develops in the future. A recent historical example that comes to mind is that of John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones."
This is interesting for a number of reasons. First, none of the things which he lists were the reason for the split between Stott and Lloyd-Jones. I do not want to upset the Guardians of the Lloyd Jones Scrolls, so will not opine further on this matter, other than to say the split is not an example of what Professor Noll highlights. Interested readers should look up his 1966 address as reprinted by Banner of Truth in Knowing the Times.
Second, the use of the word "schisms" is unfortunate. Schism is an ecclesiological word. It has no meaning outside of a church context. Is this perhaps a Freudian slip, revealing that the Gospel Coalition is unconsciously looked on as a church, precisely the problem which makes others wary of coalition bodies that might supplant the church?
Third, given the fact that both my wife and I entered the world shortly after the 1966 split, we are both delighted to know that our births are `recent' and that we can therefore still make credible claims to youth. Thanks for that, Justin. It has made my wife's day, brother! Though maybe I should demit my eldership -- doesn't Paul have something to say about a minister or elder not being a `recent' convert?
"Then, there is also the danger of schisms. As a broad coalition with differing views on church government, the sacraments, the gifts of the Spirit, and practices of ministry, there is always the danger of schisms over any of these items or something that develops in the future. A recent historical example that comes to mind is that of John Stott and Martyn Lloyd-Jones."
This is interesting for a number of reasons. First, none of the things which he lists were the reason for the split between Stott and Lloyd-Jones. I do not want to upset the Guardians of the Lloyd Jones Scrolls, so will not opine further on this matter, other than to say the split is not an example of what Professor Noll highlights. Interested readers should look up his 1966 address as reprinted by Banner of Truth in Knowing the Times.
Second, the use of the word "schisms" is unfortunate. Schism is an ecclesiological word. It has no meaning outside of a church context. Is this perhaps a Freudian slip, revealing that the Gospel Coalition is unconsciously looked on as a church, precisely the problem which makes others wary of coalition bodies that might supplant the church?
Third, given the fact that both my wife and I entered the world shortly after the 1966 split, we are both delighted to know that our births are `recent' and that we can therefore still make credible claims to youth. Thanks for that, Justin. It has made my wife's day, brother! Though maybe I should demit my eldership -- doesn't Paul have something to say about a minister or elder not being a `recent' convert?
