The Gospel Coaliton seems steeped with the American love for celebrity, but in this case “Reformed” celebrity. How does celebrity culture expect to make a change in culture when it is immersed in it?

The list of contributors includes plenty of NT theologians, NT biblical studies specialists, pastoral theologians, systematic theologians, church historians, church planters, popular preachers and even a “church equity strategist,” but only Ray Ortlund Jr. has a Ph.D. in OT. I know that there is a shortage of Old Testament theologians and specialists in evangelical circles, but as it stands the conference should instead be titled “New Testament Specialists, Church Historians, Pastors and Planters Attempting to Preach the Old Testament Without Counsel.”

Jared, you don’t think THE Gospel Coalition is sweeping in itself? I mean, if you’re not in THE Coalition, where are you in relation to the GOSPEL?

But aside from that, TGC claims to be a ministry and claims to do preaching and sacraments. Yet they are not overseen by an ecclesiastical body.

Invididual members of TGC do write about the church. But it has yet to inform the organization.

We’d probably get along just fine even though I hold to theonomic principles.

My purpose here is not to defend everything TGC does, nor even to disagree with your conclusions. But let’s look at the following:

“But these same folks are not particularly interested in thinking through the doctrine of the church and what it may mean for operations like TGC.”
– What are specific examples of “them” doing just what you’re referring to? Are you referring to Justin Taylor? Kevin DeYoung? Thabiti? Tullian, a PCA pastor? Scotty Smith, another PCA pastor? Keller? Driscoll? Powlison? Dever? Where do they demonstrate their lack of interest in thinking through the doctrine of the church?

“And how is it exactly possible to have a gospel without a church (or an understanding of it)?”
– Are there specific examples of particular posts where they either explicitly or implicitly claim that it is possible to have a gospel ‘without a church’? Would they really claim that ‘a church’ is not necessary for the gospel or an understanding of it? Or if you see that statement as an implication from TGC’s structure or their lack of stated ecclesiology, why is it the case that a church-less gospel is a direct implication?

Again, not attempting to kick an online hornet’s nest, but I think sweeping statements that comment on a group’s lack of interest and lack of consideration need some specific examples that back up those statements.

And how is it exactly possible to have a gospel without a church (or an understanding of it). Doesn’t the church visibly embody the gospel?