The debate over the book on the mission of the church by Kevin DeYoung and Greg Gilbert over at the Gospel Coalition and beyond is fascinating, both for its content and because it is likely a premonition of battles to come.  I have not yet read the book but the debate has pushed it to the top of my reading list and the reviews - negative and positive - lead me to believe that as of this moment I am very much with the authors not their critics on the matter of the church.  

The debate reflects a number of tensions within the broader "gospel centred" scene, not least that between pastor-exegetes and leader-sociologists.   Part of the problem is that the current revival in reformed theology is not actually a revival in Reformed theology.   Adherence to five or, more frequently, four points of Calvinism is that which qualifies one as reformed these days and thus as part of the movement.  Yet such adherence leaves massive and important areas of theology and church life undecided.  A movement built on such minimal agreement is a movement whose strength and unity depends to a large degree on sleight of hand or at least on pretending that much else can be filed under `Agree to differ.'

The Gospel Coalition represents this in a number of ways.   Its constituency enjoys consensus on a few important areas but much else is left open: some high-profile adherents regard multi-site as the wave of the future, others regard it as of the Devil; some regard T D Jakes as a Christian brother and a leader, others are horrified by him and his theology.  I suspect there is also disagreement over the issue of cultural transformation.

The gospel-centred world seems divided over whether the gospel is primarily about transforming culture or individual forgiveness for sins.  Of course, there is a spectrum of opinion on this matter and not everyone is at one end of it or the other.  Yet the passions generated by DeYoung and Gilbert highlight the problem and indicate that it cannot be ignored.  Indeed, it seems likely that the gospel-centred world is set to become more, not less, polarized on this issue.  After all, how one answers the question of the mission of the church reflects how one understands the gospel and shapes everything that the church does.  Thus, for example, some can talk confidently about 'arts ministries' while others of us scratch our heads as to why our churches would ever contemplate prioritizing painting or poetry over toilet cleaning and providing after-service coffee and cakes.  The latter are surely of more immediate and universal importance to the church but would rarely if ever be dignified with the title of `ministry.'  

It is likely that the debate about transformationalism will, along with historical Adam and the legitimacy of homosexuality, be the big discussion of the next decade.  This is one reason why large umbrella organizations cannot provide leadership: contexts in which people can agree to differ on things like multi-site, T D Jakes and transformationalism can certainly be great venues for fascinating debate and for helping the wider public see all of the issues; but only when a clear stand is made on one side or the other of such questions can real direction be given.