By Emir Caner
Most of us in our forties – what I call the Seinfeld Generation – remember the old Southern Baptist literature, much of which was shallower than an oasis in the midst of the Mohave Desert. The study was topical and usually began and ended with the question, “What does that passage mean to me.” For years we have longed for a curriculum that gave an in-depth, exegetical study of Scriptural passages that expounded authorial intent while also attaching a personal and contemporary application. We were tired of the scratch-n-sniff study strategy that had long defined much of Sunday School curriculum inside and outside our Convention.
When The Gospel Project was announced, many in my limited circle, including local pastors and trustees of Truett-McConnell College, began studying the material and giving positive reviews of the lessons. And there is much to be commended. It is quite refreshing to see quotes from theological giants like Martin Luther, the great Reformer who proclaimed once again, “The just shall live by faith.” Early Church Fathers are quoted repeatedly, something that makes this church historian very pleased. While these men are not known by many, they should be. Important theological questions engage the mind of the reader such as, “What about those who have never heard the Gospel?”
Yet, there are many questions left unanswered when one reads two lessons available online: “Numb to the Word” and “God Is Not Hiding.”[1] For many who have read these two lessons, there is a perception of a Reformed-bent in the material and these lessons do little to alleviate such concerns. For example, if one were to list those quoted in the material, excluding Early Church Fathers, one would notice an imbalance towards Reformed and/or predestinarian authors:
REFORMED NON-REFORMED
Jerry Bridges Larry Crabb
Matt Chandler C. S. Lewis
Gabriel Fackre
Christian George
James Hamilton
Carl F. H. Henry
Martin Luther
Rudolf Otto
John Owen
John Piper
Francis Shaeffer
Trevin Wax
This list is only exacerbated if one looks at the three recommended podcasts given in the two lessons: Andy Davis, John Piper, and David Platt are three well-known Reformed thinkers in Evangelical life today. For many, it is not the inclusion of the aforementioned pastors that is bothersome; it is the fact that there is an imbalance of thought leaning toward the Reformed paradigm.
The material has Reformed tendencies from beginning to end. The opening illustration for session six, “Numb to the World,” speaks of “spiritual leprosy” and how the illustration relates to our sinful state. John Calvin gives that particular example when he wrote, “Since then there is in us nothing but spiritual infection and leprosy and that we are corrupt in our iniquities…”[2] Calvin’s analogy, then, becomes the template for the entire lesson. The hymn used at the end of lesson six, which unfortunately is not footnoted, is a Reformed hymn found in the United Presbyterian Church Psalter with Responsive Readings (1912) as well as in works by Reformed theologians Wayne Grudem and John MacArthur.
The Reformed bent is not the only worry in the first two lessons. Ecumenism, a liberal theological movement that emphasizes unity between denominations over theological distinction, replaces any emphasis upon Southern Baptist theology. We are most definitely at a crossroads with our own publishing house. Will the future of LifeWay be one that represents and advocates Baptist theology or is The Gospel Project the beginning of an ecumenical paradigm shift? For example, if I separate those quoted in the two lessons, excluding those who pre-date Southern Baptist life, here is the breakdown between Southern Baptists and non-Southern Baptists:
NON-SOUTHERN BAPTISTS SOUTHERN BAPTISTS
Jerry Bridges Christian George
Matt Chandler James Hamilton
Larry Crabb Carl F. H. Henry[3]
Gabriel Fackre Trevin Wax
C.S. Lewis
John Piper
Francis Shaeffer
What is more troublesome is that all four Southern Baptists named are Reformed. That leaves zero – zero – Southern Baptists quoted who hold to a theological viewpoint representative of the vast majority of Southern Baptists. Incredibly, contemporary figures from Southern Baptist life are noticeably absent from the lessons.[4] It is as if we want our children to grow up without the knowledge of heroes of the faith like John Leland or R. G. Lee. With a generation that does not even recognize modern-day prophets like Charles Stanley and Paige Patterson much less historic figures such as John Smyth or B. H. Carroll, and without a publishing house that purposefully highlights such figures, our Baptist heritage is likely to set on the horizon of church history.
Finally, some of the ones quoted are questionable in their theology. Diodore of Tarsus is recognized by many as a Universalist who advocated heaven would be filled with everyone who has ever lived.[5] Inclusivist theologian and Open Theist John Sanders quoted Diodore to advocate his erroneous beliefs.[6] Gabriel Fackre, a Post-liberal narrative theologian whose wife is also an ordained minister, is one of the premiere leaders of the Ecumenical movement, taking part in ecumenical discussions in the World Council of Churches and criticizing views of religious conservatives.[7] He is also a proponent of what Ronald Nash terms “Postmortem Evangelism” in which many will have the ability to receive Christ after death.[8] Many will question, then, why men whose views are so foreign to Southern Baptists take center stage over men and women who deserve a seat at the table.
Ultimately, the questions and concerns raised in this article are much larger than the content of two sample lessons in newly minted material. They speak to the heart of the debate in Southern Baptist life. We are in the midst of an identity crisis. And we are a divided people whether we wish for it to be so or not. When asked whether Southern Baptists are worried about the rise of Calvinism, 61% of respondents answered in the affirmative. With that being the case, leaders must deal with such concerns and, unless they wish for division, alleviate such fears. To publish and promote a new curriculum that has such strong Calvinistic leanings only intensifies the situation and disregards the voice in the pew. The vast majority of Southern Baptists do not want to be known as Calvinists or Arminians, but as Baptists with a rich heritage they can learn from. We stand on the shoulders of giants. Truth is Immortal.
[1] http://s3.amazonaws.com/TGPdownloads/the-gospel-project-student-leader.pdf; http://s3.amazonaws.com/TGPdownloads/the-gospel-project-adult-leader.pdf. One lesson is intentionally geared towards students and the other is pointed to adults. These lessons use multiple passages and are not verse-by-verse studies of particular texts. Instead, the editors chose to use more meta-narrative methodology.
[2] Randall C. Zachman, John Calvin as Teacher, Pastor, and Theologian (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 75.
[3] Henry was ordained as a Northern Baptist but he joined with Southern Baptists a few years before he graduated to glory.
[4] It should be noted that Pastor Ralph Green, in his perusal of additional Gospel Project material, did find one quote from Adrian Rogers.
[5] See John Wesley Hanson, Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church (Boston: Universalist Publishing House, 1899), 256. Diodore stated, “For the wicked there are punishments, not perpetual, however, lest the immortality prepared for them should be a disadvantage, but they are to be punished for a brief period according to the amount of malice in their works…but immortal blessedness having no end awaits them.”
Dr. Caner,
Thank you! I appreciate your analysis of the men and message of this material. It is very helpful. More later …
I only want to make one comment. I have an email in my files from Dr. Rainer and Trevan Wax where both of them say that there is NO Calvinistic slant at all in this material.
I have a copy of all the first quarter material and have read through it. I will reserve my comments on it. But, I will say that if there is any slant at all, then it seems I have been mislead.
Thanks for the thoughtful and irenic observations about a conversation that includes but extends far beyond this particular curriculum.
In Him,
Adam
Dr. Caner,
What a great analysis. Allow me a time of being an advocate for those in favor of the GP. While your analysis is probably correct, would it be fair to say this is only two lessons? The rest of the curriculum may be different and as such probably will address some of your concerns. With that said, are you not over-reacting to make your assessment of the material based on two lessons?
I went to sleep and somehow slipped into an alternate universe. ;)
Bill Mac,
lol.
Tim, what have you done with the real Tim Rogers?
David :)
Any reason Matt Chandler is listed as non-SBC when he has pastored an SBC church for several years?
Wondered the same thing.
Fred and Miles,
The Village is solely affiliated with the BGCT. Now, if you want to ask the leadership in the BGCT about their position concerning the SBC I believe you will find them say–”we consider ourselves SB in historical content only”. Matt Chandler is President of Acts 29, he is solely aligned with the BGCT–a CBF partnering convention that is openly against anything SBC. The Village gave $49K to the CP through the BGCT. (Trying to figure out how much went to SBC causes through their giving platform is like trying to figure out where Assange is going to be staying in Ecuador.) They gave $10,000 to Lottie Moon. This SBC endorsement from The Village came from a budget of $19 million. Now, having said that, what Chandler does in his own church is his business as they are autonomous. However, if this is the kind of leadership that LifeWay wants promoted in the convention then don’t come asking me to increase my CP giving.
As for Chandler being SB, I think we would all agree that is like a person that is a member of your church and gives a token gift of $25 per year but only comes on Easter and Christmas. But, when your pastor desires to promote something that is going to cost money, he brings in the vacillating church member to promote the project simply because he has a standing in the community. Not quite sure how that would go over in your churches, but in the church I pastor we would have a riot on our hands.
Tim,
If you applied that metric to all SBC churches, we would reduce the number of actual Baptists down to a much lower number than you could imagine.
How many churches do you think actually participate in Baptist life through giving or affiliation on a level that you deem appropriate? It is far less than 45,000 or 16 million, I assure you.
Are you eliminating all BGCT churches from the SBC?
Is this a new parameter of cooperation that SBC Today has come up with? Is this too the view of the “majority” of Southern Baptists?
Really, Tim?
Alan, the only reason we exist is CP. It is a measurement of committment to our mission whether some like that or not. I know many SBC or SBC-ish mega churches don’t think like that idea. They want to be in forefront in SBC leadership making decisions about our money and give very little to our main mission and reason we exist. I get that. I disagree with it and wish others did, too.
As for me, I am not willing to fund Calvinist Church plants and I am certainly not wiling to fund anything that promotes Driscoll or even Piper (Women should take abuse for a season and a host of other problems with his teaching)
. I am STUNNED to find the Gospel Project links to Driscoll resources. It seems Lifeway did not learn a lesson since the Petry documents came out on Joyful Exiles. Or, Perhaps Lifeway want our teens to dig deeper on Driscoll and watch his porno visions or be taught sodomy is ok because the bible does not specifically have a verse “forbidding it” even though educated people know what a huge health risk it is and not God’s intention? (common sense anyone?)
Have we really come this low that everything that has come out about Driscoll is being ignored by Lifeway?
All of this is a matter of trust. I simply do not trust them anymore.
Lydia, The Gospel Project does not link to Mark Driscoll.
“Lydia, The Gospel Project does not link to Mark Driscoll.”
Are you sure Driscoll, Mars Hill or his Acts 29 are not foot noted or sourced for anything in TGP? I have to ask that way because some tend to “parse” things if you do not ask exactly right and in detail. And it can leave wrong impressions.
So are you saying that you do not know if the Gospel project links to Mark Driscoll Lydia? Have you seen any of the lessons? If you are not sure of something isn’t it better to ask than to throw statements that are not true? That is wrong and is done too many times. You keep throwing out that you want the truth, I would suggest you not make up things you are not sure about.
Lydia,
There are many smaller SBC churches that give almost nothing to the CP either – just the bare minimum. So, it is not only the megachurches, although I agree with you about their undue influence.
Does TGP really quote and cite Driscoll? Where does it do that? I would like to check that out.
Yes, Lydia, I am sure. Matt Chandler is quoted, obviously.
I think Lydia may have read a reference down thread where a Pastor had a problem with some other Lifeway Material – specifically student I think that was linking to Driscoll. It sounded like it’s not a new issue that reformed resources are being heavily pushed in Lifeway Curriculum.
Debbie, I thought Driscoll was footnoted as an additional source in one of the lessons. If I am wrong, I apologize. And there is a problem in that we have to buy it all to really review it properly. And we do not know what is coming down the pike with the rest of the cradle to grave curriculum.
But not sure Piper is any bettter since he affirms and has affirmed Driscoll despite the glaring warning signs for years. And because of his teaching that women should abuse for a season, promoting pro slavery patriarchal Doug Wilson and also the seeker Rick
Warren.
I was alarmed in 2009 with his “Scream of the Damned” sermon, and further back with “Christian” Hedonism and other redefining of words/concepts. I would prefer my children or any teens not to be pointed to Piper as a resource. There are a ton more reasons I do not have space to list. But I would especially hate for my daughtr to be taught he is someone to listen to since he teaches that women should take abuse for a season and even down to women should make sure when they give men driving instructions they should not appear to be “teaching” them. I think he is off the charts as to be ridiculous. You do realize women are no longer allowed to read scripture aloud in his church, right? Do we really want his influence in the SBC? We surely have not become that ridiculous?
“There are many smaller SBC churches that give almost nothing to the CP either – just the bare minimum. ”
Alan, are you talking percentages or total amount? And I am not sure what the mega churches excuses are since they do have mor mega resources and spend quite a bit on many superflous things. :o) (Now there is something I know about)
One example in our newspaper in reporting CP giving across the state. Tiny Hopewell church in the hinterlands with less than 100 members gave 30,000. Highview with 1000+ members gave 10,000.
That is just one example out of many.
“Lydia, have you ever actually read a quote by Douglas Wilson that was “pro-slavery,” or are you just repeating accusations that you’ve heard from others?”
Michael Vaughn,
Are you not familiar with his “pamphlet” written with Steven Wilkins in 1996, “Southern Slavery As It Was”, long before the advent of blogging? This was covered quite in depth back when Metzler was blogging about his days in the authoritarian “kirk” of CREC.
After the advent of blogs, he updated this embarassing pamphlet in 2004 because it was being challenged by scholars on the internet. He then wrote, Black and Tan. Mainly because of questionable citations in the first pamphlet.
Here is more: http:slash slashwwwdothnndot us.articlesslash9142.html (sorry links won’t post– this is from George Mason U)
Are you familiar with Wilkins? How about George Grant? Both speakers at his “History Conference”.
Oh and nevermind him presiding over the marriage of a serial pedophile to a girl from a patriarchal family because she was an “old maid” at 23. This is a pedophile that he coddled and protected even after parents begged him not to. You can google the story of Steven Sitler and Katie Travis.
And to top it off, I used to read Blog and mablog a lot and was quite amused at how he demanded the name of your pastor if you dared disagree with him so he could call them to discipline you.
So, we need to be aware that Piper shows little discernment when it comes to promoting people like Wilson and Driscoll
I had not heard of these things (I had only watched his recent lecture where he refuted those accusations). I promise to read more–thanks for the sources.
Actually, on SBC.net you can find a listing for: The Village Church. Also, their 2010 and 2011 audited financial statement reads:
\”As for Chandler being SB, I think we would all agree that is like a person that is a member of your church and gives a token gift of $25 per year but only comes on Easter and Christmas\”
And this is the problem a lot of us see with planting Acts29/Acts29 knockoff churches. They give almost exclusively to churches \”like them\” ie Reformed with very restrictive membership requirements. These churches are not committed to the CP as a whole but to planting reformed churches. There\’s nothing wrong with a group saying we want to support those like us, but it\’s this type of designated giving that will kill the CP – the CP is supposed to be different than that exlcusive giving model. You\’ll notice how the Calvinists all hoot and howl when a Trad says I\’m not giving my money to plant reformed churches but a church like Chandler who is giving only a small token to the CP is allowed to designate their giving anyway they like without question. And again you can see where Calvinists don\’t like this information to get out to the SBC at large. Can\’t tell the SBC that NAMB is planting these sorts of exclusive churches. Calvinists want the Trads to share the money when there is evidence all over the place that the Calvinists will not be sharing their money.
Yes, Matt Chandler is Southern Baptist. That should be corrected.
I am not a Calvinist, but as long as limited atonement/predestination/election from a Calvinist perspective is not being pushed through the material, I really do not see the issue here. Do we not still have the same quarterly Sunday School material? Must everything that Southern Baptists read include quotes from Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, and Adrian Rogers? This is one study. As you said, for years and years, we have had a different view. I get no sense that Lifeway will only produce this material and that this is all that anyone can use or buy from them. We are a big convention and the marketplace of ideas is open. Why don’t you and others from the Traditionalist perspective make a proposal for additional material for people to choose?
If your goal here is for people to beware the Gospel Project because it has Calvinist tendencies and we are supposed to be afraid of that, then what would you have us use? I am fairly confident that Lifeway would listen to your concerns and consider alternative curriculum to promote since they already have many studies that are already published and they continue to print the regular Sunday School quarterlies. Should we examine those to see if R.G. Lee, W.A. Criswell, Paige Patterson, Jerry Vines, and Adrian Rogers have been quoted there? Maybe we could look at the Quarterlies as a place for the Trad view to influence and make more meaningful. Since the claim is that the Trad view is predominant in the SBC, it would have been nice if you would have given us some more in depth Bible study/theology years ago. But, perhaps we can start now?
Alan, our convention certainly is big enough for differing systems of belief. However, many at Lifeway, even Dr. Rainer, are on record as saying this was not a Calvinistic slanted curriculum. There are many of us do not believe that is the case. It needs to at least be honestly identified for what it is, a Sunday school material produced to appease the Calvinist in our convention. Put the reform stamp on it and let churches use it if they want.
And when the majority of the resources you’re listing are to Calvinist authors isn’t that going to be leading people to read more Calvinism? If readers want to read more of the people behind the quotes isn’t and those quoted are overwhelmingly Calvinists isn’t that leading people to read more Calvinism?
Mary,
Are we trying to keep people from reading Calvinist authors now? I don’t see why this is a problem. Again, I am not a Calvinist, but if we cannot teach people how to discern and how to formulate a strong belief on salvation, then I have no idea what we are doing anyway.
To be discerning is to be given all the information you need to be able to discern. To only give one side of the story is not educating people and helping them be Bereans. Of course we can read Calvinists but we have to do so with the understanding that when John Piper speaks of Sovereignty he means something totally different than Trads. When he speaks of the sinfulness of man he’s meaning something diffierent. Calvinists and Trads have different definitions.
And with the exception of CS Lewis I could bet money that you would not walk into a Calvinist church and find on their “resource table” and list of recommended books anything by Trad/nonCalvinists. Calvinists are allowed to do this, but somehow it’s wrong to think maybe we shouldn’t just be sending people off to read a whole bunch of Calvinism without first telling them what they’re reading?
It might just lead them to the Bible and reading scripture. That is a good thing Mary isn’t it?
Debbie, the discussion has nothing to do with reading the Bible and Scripture. Of course we all agree that reading the Bible and Scripture is good. No one has suggested otherwise and I’m not sure why anyone would accuse another Christian of such.
Just because I am reading a Calvinist, that does not mean that the material is slanted in a Calvinistic direction. I am a non-Calvinist and I love Tim Keller. I used his books in my church and develop Bible studies out of them. I am working on one right now. He is focused on God’s initiating grace and is a Calvinist, but he is heavily influenced by CS Lewis – a non-Calvinist. Keller does not push TULIP, or the Calvinistic system, so I can use and appreciate his writings. John Piper is another writer who has good writings that anyone can use. He also has stuff that is full-on Calvinism. As a pastor, I can discern which is helpful and which pushes one particular theological perspective. Just because a writer is a Calvinist, that does not mean that the material quoted is pushing Calvinism.
Unless we are saying that Traditionalists have a problem with God’s Sovereignty, the sinfulness of man, a God-centered, Christ-focused theological view, and God’s initiating grace, then I do not understand the concern over Calvinism unless they are pushing limited atonement and unconditional election. If we start seeing lessons on TULIP and a Reformed system as the only way to see theology, then you have a point.
Otherwise, this all looks like a lot of frustration that the Traditionalist or whatever we are calling them now aren’t the ones being quoted or are calling the shots.
Let’s hear from different voices. It might be good for us. And again, don’t we still have the Sunday School quarterlies? Is the Gospel Project the only option? Let’s put time and energy into making the Quarterlies better. Honestly, the last time I looked at them, they were pretty good.
This seems to be much ado about nothing.
Alan,
Here is the problem with your naivete;
Dr. Al Mohler Jr. quoted by Dr. Tom Neetles in the book by Founders Press in the Introduction. But, we don’t have anything to be concerned about because we want to be in control. Yeah, right.
And the question begging to be asked “why are all the other voices Calvinist” There really aren’t voices we should hear that aren’t Calvinist? Is God speaking mostly through Calvinists?
Tim,
So, your problem is with Al Mohler? I agree that his statement is ridiculous. It should be opposed at every level and for a president of an SBC seminary to say that is awful. But, do you attribute that view to every Calvinist? This is what I would like from you guys: an honest answer as to what you see the solution to be. Do you want the removal of all Calvinistic influence from Southern Baptist life? How much is too much? Clearly, the control of the most influential SBC seminary is of greater consequence than TGP. Is that too much influence for you? Should all Southern graduates be seen as suspect and operating with a hidden agenda?
Is the goal here the removal of Calvinistic influence from the SBC? If so, then state that. If not, then why is TGP with a Calvinistic bent such a problem when you also have the regular Sunday School literature and have had that all along. Do you want the TGP to have a disclaimer at the bottom of every page that it is written by mostly Calvinists? Should the SS Quarterlies have a disclaimer that it is written from a non-Calvinist perspective? Should we create lines of demarcation in the SBC between seminaries, Bible colleges, missionaries, Sunday School material, books, state conventions, local associations, churches, Sunday School classes, etc? If BOTH views are applicable under the BF&M, then how would you like this to go?
I am not naive, Tim. I know when I am reading a Calvinist and when I am not. I also get it when I am being evanglized by Calvinists according to TULIP or when Traditionalists are trying to get me to see the altar call and the Sinner’s prayer as indispensible aspects of the Gospel. I am just trying to figure out what your End Game is, which is something that I keep asking you and I still can’t get an answer. It is really hard for anyone to sympathetic to your view when we have no idea what you want or where this is going. All I see is a lot of finger pointing and accusation.
If all you say is true, then what do you want us to do about it? What is the solution?
Maybe SBC Today could write a post that actually tells us what the Traditionalists want.
“But, do you attribute that view to every Calvinist?”
Alan, Mohler’s influence is ingrained in the Reformed movement in the SBC. He is the leader of that movement more than Ascol ever dreamed could happen. I know you guys do not believe that but it is true. He has had carte blanche to operate and build a Reformed wing for a long time now and he has made his position known with words that should give our leadership pause. But did not. I will never convince you, as a fellow travellor, of that. And I certainly will never convince those who have been seriously influenced by him and his comrades (T4G, TGC) that they have the true Gospel.
Mohler does speak for the SBC Reformed wing. He is the go to guy. Much more than Founders ever dreamed of because Mohler has had control over a seminary. Now he influences NAMB. And it is obvious our leadership is influenced by him as he is on the committee for unity after all he has said that promoted “disunity”.
Kind of amazing when one thinks about it. Major cognative dissonance.
I think Al Mohler has said a lot of things that make both the Reformed and the non-Reformed cringe. Like Paige Patterson or Richard Land, he does not speak for all of us.
The reaction of his resigning however is a little over the top. He made a statement that is over the top. But he said nothing that Charles Spurgeon did not say and even wrote a sermon on. Spurgeon was decidedly Baptist.
I agree with you Allen. I call myself a reformed Baptist but I don’t go around pushing TULIP or persuade everyone to believe what I believe. Actually, if people would climb down from the ledge, I think they’d realize that many so-called calvinists take this same approach. I meet on a regular basis with other reformed brothers and I none of them run around trying to convert people with TULIP. They preach the Gospel and trust God to work in the hearts of their hearers. It’s the same thing we all do.
Lydia,
You will never convince me of that? Really? I totally agree with you! Mohler’s influence is completely disproportionate to his position and is inconceivable to me. Why did SBC leadership ever let it happen? Why is Mohler on every committee, task force, think tank, and decision making team in Southern Baptist life? I wrote a post the other day questioning his influence and also questioning if he was not part of the problem. You are right only in that I do not need convincing.
But, Mohler has been doing this for a long time. Where has the opposition been? Where is the opposition to his influence at Southern? The training of pastors there? Now we are getting somewhere! I thank you Lydia for naming names and articulating where you see the problem to lie! I too am concerned about how Mohler defines the gospel according to the Doctrines of Grace and TULIP. Honestly, he should have been called before his Board of Trustees and have been reprimanded and questioned as to his goals for the seminary and for SBC Life in the preachers that he is training if he is saying that Calvinism is the “only” logical understanding of the gospel. That view would go beyond the BF&M2000, something that I was a part of trying to curtail back in 2007 and was opposed on by those who are still a part of SBC Today. Where are Southern’s trustees? My guess is that they are doing the same thing that SWBTS’s trustees are doing for their president. Instead of providing accountability, they are giving him room to make Southern into what he thinks it should be.
On the other hand, I like a lot of what Mohler has done and is doing because I do not see him only through a Calvinistic lense – so it is a mixed bag. But, even though he is promoting Calvinism more than I would like or PERSONALLY agree with, I also understand that the SBC is bigger than my theology. If it fits under the BF&M2000, as Calvinism clearly does, then do we even have a role in trying to limit its influence? Or, do we understand that we exist in a denomination where the influence of Calvinism has historically ebbed and flowed and that it is just the natural order of our theological disposition? Mohler should back off the claim that is it the ONLY way forward or he should resign, in my opinion. THAT is the conversation that we should be having because that is an egregious error, not sniffing out a Calvinistic tinge to TGP.
“Where is the opposition to his influence at Southern? The training of pastors there?”
Alan, When you are given that much power that young, you can take some time to eliminate any real opposition …which is what happened. (You will see some minor disagreements for the sake of espousing academic plausibility but no one really dares cross certain lines in the sand)
The younger ones coming out seem to be totally indoctrinated. Older ones (40 years or so) who are going for grad work are more seasoned from the real world, recognize some of the “group think” and just want to finish their work and get out. This of course is a general observation. There are some in each category. It is just that people have learned to keep their mouths shut. Secrecy and discretion is promoted in such environments so life is not made harder than it is. It is a bit of a “closed system” in how it operates. Most in such systems do not recognize it until they have been long gone from it. And it is really not about Calvinism per se. Calvinism rallies the youngen’s (and some older!) to a cause. It is more about power and running the SBC. Mohler is a brilliant political strategist and very patient.
This is my opinion. I do not expect anyone to share it. Nor will I argue for it. It is based on observation for many years and convos with those who work at SBTS and have or are students over the last 10 years or so.
is it a question of limiting influence? Or is it a question of making sure the influence is acknowledged and the SBC at large understands what’s happening? What I’m seeing more and more is Calvinists want to keep the influence on the down low. Does the SBC at large know that Southern is the Calvinist Seminary? Don’t they have a right to know that? Should the SBC be told that NAMB seems to be planting a majority of Acts29 knockoffs – does the SBC have a right to know these new church plants are churches “not like them?”
“He made a statement that is over the top. But he said nothing that Charles Spurgeon did not say and even wrote a sermon on. Spurgeon was decidedly Baptist.”
Debbie, I do not understand your logic. I am not in England nor am I in Spurgeon’s church. Mohler is paid by many non Calvinists but thinks Calvinism is the only place to go if you want to see the nations rejoice. Spurgeon is not an employee of one of our entities. Nor is Spurgeon partnering with Acts 29 or CJ Mahaney.
Alan, thanks! I’m a calvinistic SBC’er and your thoughts mimic my own. I’m glad and proud to be a part of the SBC.
Zack, I am not a Calvinist and am I basic disagreement with aspects of the system. My biggest question here involves how the Trads hope to carry forth their complaint against Lifeway and other aspects of the SBC involving Calvinism. What is the goal? What is the desire? How can their concerns be addressed and satisfied? What does peace look like? We have had months of critique and debate and I have no idea what the end game is.
Break Thou the Bread of Life is the hymn at the end of session 4 in the adult curriculum. It is public domain and need not be footnoted further, and it is included in The Baptist Hymnal (2008, #407; 1991, #263). And true, quoted in Grudem’s Systematic Theology in the chapter on the Word of God (the subject of the entire quarter’s lessons).
So, this is a hymn in The Baptist Hymnal of 2008 and 1991? Why was this not stated and instead, was declared to be a Presbyterian hymn? If a hymn is in any other hymnal in addition to our hymnal does that mean that it is not ours as well?
Or, were Baptists in 1991 Calvinists too?
This seems to be another omission that should be corrected along with calling Matt Chandler a non-Baptist.
Well there could well be some nefarious purpose or it could be Dr. Caner is not a music guy so doesn’t do so much searching of music. Do churches even have Baptist hymnals anymore? The ones I’ve been to either have none or they went to some Celebration thing when the Baptist hymnal fell so far behind the times. And it could be true that it’s both a Presbyterian Hymn as well as a Baptist Hymn.
Mary, it is a Christian hymn, first and foremost, which appears in multiple hymnals throughout Church history. But it does appear in the Baptist Hymnal in both 1991 and 2008. And pssst… it’s not reformed at all… here are the lyrics:
break thou the bread of life. Dear Lord to me, as thou didst break the loaves beside the sea; beyond the sacred page I seek thee Lord; my spirit pants for thee, O living Word
bless thou the truth dear Lord, to me, to me, as thou didst bless the bread by Galilee; then shall all bondage cease, all fetters fall; and I shall find my peace, my all in all.
Thou art the bread of life, O Lord, to me, thy holy Word the truth that saveth me; give me to eat and live with thee above; teach me to love thy truth, for thou art love.
O send thy Spirit, Lord, now unto me, that he may touch mine eyes, and make me see: show me the truth concealed within thy word, and in thy book revealed I see thee, Lord.
There it is, calvinistic indoctrination at its best, telling God I long for your word and asking Him to reveal the truth of it to me. I fail to see any trouble here.
Darryl, I was trying to offer grace to Dr. Caner who may not be as up on his hymnody as others.
The hymn writer for the first 2 verses is Mary Lathbury. “Daughter of a Methodist minister” “Mary Artemesia Lathbury (born August 10, 1841) was a teacher, artist, and editor as well as a writer (and not only of hymns). She taught art at a number of schools in the northeastern US, and was then hired as associate editor for the Methodist Episcopal Sunday School publications.” Methodist = Calvinist?
According to the CyberHymnal
“verses 3-4, Alexander Groves, in the Wesleyan Methodist Magazine (London: September 1913).”
So it’s not a hymn written by a Baptist but then it’s not a hymn likely to have been written by a Calvinist either.
But wait the tune writer was “William Fisk Sherwin, an American Baptist, was born at Buckland, Massachusetts, March 14, 1826.” His position on Calvinism is unknown.
You said session 6. He said session 4. Are you talking about the same thing and same hymn. Would like to know. If it’s different, what hymn was he talking about?
I believe he just mentioned the wrong session that had the hymn. There is not a hymn at the end of session 6 and the hymn at the end of session 4 is in Grudem’s Systematic Theology as he stated.
Dr. Caner,
Thank you for your thorough analysis. After affirming three positive aspects of the material, you carefully demonstrated the dramatic imbalance between the twelve reformed writers quoted and the two non-reformed writers quoted. For me, at least, this constitutes the first proof of bias.
You further documented that three out of three podcasts promoted in these two lessons are of reformed speakers, which constitutes a second proof of bias, since with regard to sermon podcast promotion, it is a mathematical impossibility to lean any more to the reformed side than 100%.
You then traced the spiritual leprosy analogy to its historic root in Calvin’s quote and then helpfully identified the Presbyterian hymn included, noting its use by two well known reformed theologians. This historical and cultural analysis is a third proof clearly demonstrating that the ideas being expressed in this material spring from reformed thought. Neither lesson, for example, draws upon the Baptist Hymnal.
For your fourth proof, you are commended for hitting two birds with one stone by more accurately identifying the concern of ecumenism as it snakes its way into Southern Baptist curricula. When seven out of eleven contemporary quotations must be drawn from outside the Southern Baptist Convention, and when out of four Southern Baptists quoted all four happen to be reformed (providing once again the familiar 100% bias) you have clearly exposed a problem within a problem. Even when we depart from our bias toward ecumenism and practically demean ourselves by considering Southern Baptist thought, the only Southern Baptists whose thoughts we consider are reformed.
I am compelled to ask, “Can this really even be called Southern Baptist literature when the positions held by the majority of our convention are not reflected by the citation of a single non-reformed Southern Baptist theologian or writer?” Have we asked Lifeway to produce material that expresses what we believe or have we asked them to produce material promoting the beliefs of outsiders who would reform our way of thinking?
For your next point, you critique the appeal in this curriculum to Diodore of Tarsus and Gabriel Fackre. Although this proves neither ecumenism nor Calvinism, the fact that their views are so foreign to Southern Baptists clearly highlights the absence of traditional Southern Baptist thought. If we have room for these men, then why is there no mention of Rogers or Criswell or Lee or Graham?
Clearly, you have proven your case of a reformed bent in The Gospel Project. At this point, anyone wishing to deny such bias might as well deny that there is beauty in a rose or joy in the laughter of a child. Thank you for exposing this truth with your usual clarity and eloquence.
Calm down there. Caner dealt very little with substantiated textual evidence and dealt almost completely with insignificant “issues” like how many SBC people are quoted. If THIS is the greatest complaint to be levied against TGP, I feel confident about using it (far more so than other Lifeway material before).
I think the problem for some people is that they want to force other people to conform to their beliefs and to their image of Christianity. I’m not concerned with any man’s image of Christianity, be he Paige Patterson, John Calvin, Paul, Apollos, or anyone else; I want to be (and I want others to be) formed to the image of Christ. Which is why I have no worries with this curriculum (even though I am not a Calvinist) because I believe the emphasis is so heavily placed on Scripture. If there is so much wrong with the material as you say, certainly it won’t be able to maintain its course when the majority of SBC is supposedly “traditional” in this respect. The proof as they say, will be in the pudding.
The stuff with Ralph Green never should have been posted, this certainly is more substantial and far more thought through. That said, Dr Caner simply seems to take Mr Green’s approach to another level. Where is the lesson teaching TULIP? That reprobates are elected to damnation? That the atonement is only for the elect?
The problem is, these lessons don’t exist. I feel most of this worrying is trying to head that sort of stuff off before they get to it? Honestly I don’t ever think it will come to that. But do we really not have anything better to do than search out every quote to see how many are SBC (and with Chandler being misrepresented)? Until The Gospel Project is shown to be clearly teaching TULIP, or something along those lines, I’m not worried about teaching it.
I’m tired of the bickering. Let people see for themselves. I really don’t know why we should be so afraid to teach something like this. Are people afraid of a reformation? If the material is as bad as some say, it won’t continue to sell. If it is as Calvinist as some say, it won’t continue to sell to what is supposedly a minority with the SBC.
I’m personally very excited to use it, and judging by the lack of critique that I’ve seen for it, I really don’t have any worries or hesitations. My concern is teaching God’s Word, not Calvinist or “traditional” doctrine, and I feel that’s exactly what Trevin Wax and Ed Stetzer are about too with this material.
I would disagree. It’s perhaps better written.
Miles,
ARe you not a Calvinist? And, you see this as a great curriculum?
Well, this only strengthens the case that Pastor Green and Dr. Caner are making….because, I see a lot of Calvinists blowing the trumpet on this literature.
I’m still undecided on this issue. I’m still waiting to hear more. Pastor Green gave his opinion. I respect that. Dr. Caner gave his critique, and I can certainly see the things he’s pointing out as troubling. I respect Dr. Caner’s opinion very much.
David
David: It gives no credence to what Dr. Caner or Green are saying at all.
Finally we have a curriculum that points people to Christ. That gives all honor, glory to God, talking about them in all the lessons and not about us. It’s deep in content and has meat to it. That is why I like it.
I could give the same accusation to those who are against the curriculum. It’s because you are “Traditionalist” and I do not like using the term. You are against everything. You do not want Calvinists to contribute anything but money to the SBC. Even if there is no hint of Calvinism but just good Bible teaching and interpreting, if it’s from a Calvinist it’s wrong. But you want them to be open. See how easy that was?
Neither accusation can be proven David. I would venture that most of the churches who ordered this curriculum are not Calvinist churches, and it has already sold in the thousands, going beyond the expectations of Lifeway according to Ed Stetzer,
All this reviewing( if one can call it that) is futile. The SS lessons are selling like hotcakes because people see that the lessons contain good Bible teaching. That is the only reason it is selling. People were starving and they are now being fed through these lessons.
Debbie,
ONce again, sadly, you missed the entire point of my comment. And then, you go off on some kind of diatribe about things that I have not even said.
David
No. I’m not a Calvinist. The only man I follow was also God.
Miles,
That’s the only One I follow, as well.
David
Question? Why are quotes judged by the one who first said them instead of the content therein? If a quote makes the point and is biblical, who cares who said it and if they are on our “team?”
Cliff
R.G. Lee used to call sin “the leprosy of life.”
Adrian Rogers has a sermon called “The Grip of Guilt” that makes the same point, about “moral leprosy.”
W. A. Criswell used the analogy too.
It is a very common analogy, certainly not original with Calvin.
Kyle,
Calvin does not simply use the word “leprosy,” indeed a common illustration for preachers and teachers. Rather, he uses the specific term “spiritual leprosy.” It is a much more precise usage, and thus, the term in this material can clearly be traced to Calvin.
I would think that non-Cals would be happy with the term spiritual leprosy. Isn’t it the non-Cal position that people are sick with sin, not dead with sin (dead in the Calvinist sense)?
Isn’t all this concern with who is quoted a bit ad-hominem?
I’m really not seeing what’s wrong with saying that lost people are like people with leprosy… spirtually speaking. I’ve got to side with Bill Mac on this one. What’s the problem?
Lost people are sin sick and dying. And, if they dont get saved, then they’ll die eternally due to thier spiritual leprosy…sin. I’ve got to think that this illustration would fit better with the Trads view, than with the completely dead corpse view of the Calvinists.
Rick, can you help me see why this is such a big issue with you?
David
David: I don’t think it is the quote that is causing a problem, but who is quoted. So far I haven’t seen much complaint about content but rather about personalities.
Actually I think it is a fair observation (about who is quoted), and one that can easily be remedied as the curriculum continues to be developed.
What I’d really like to see is the specific examples of where the content is undeniably Calvinistic. If the content is so overtly calvinistic as to literally throw people into shock, I’d like to know what it is. Even as a Calvinist I would not recommend a curriculum to my church that was overtly and undeniably Calvinistic, especially if it is going to cause people to go into shock.
Allan,
You’re taking the opinions of some, and making it sound like everyone at SBC Today, and every Trad, believes all of these things. You’re lumping everyone together.
That’d be like you commenting at Voices that everyone connected with SBC Voices, and everyone commenting in support of the issue posted, were all lumped together; whenever they say that Trads are Semi Pelagian, or that Trads are conspiracy nuts hunting boogeymen.
Would it be fair to say that all the people of Voices, and all the commenters believed every, single thing said in the comment thread? You know, Alan, you come across as being very resentful of SBC Today folks, and of Traditional types. I mean, you really do come across as being angry at all of us….and for what a few say and think.
David
David,
I am not angry at all. I do not lump everyone together and I do see you trying to be fair. I am simply engaging the argument put forth by Dr. Caner and supported by Rick, Tim, and others here who are supporting it. Yes, I do see SBC Today as the mouthpiece for the Traditionalist view, because that is what it has been. But, at any point that anyone has a different view, whether they post or comment here or not, then that is to be noted and respected. So, if you disagree with what has been posted here on TGP, then of course, I do not “lump you in” with anyone else. I am simply trying to respond to this post. Forgive me if I over-generalized at any point. If my critique does not apply, then do not submit to it.
What I am trying to get at is where this is going and by what parameters are we supposed to operate. Dr. Caner’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, does not have us drawing the line at an affirmation or promotion of TULIP, but rather at anything sung or said by Calvinists at all – even if it has also been sung and said by non-Calvinist Baptists over the years because it is a point in which we agree. That is a dangerous place to stand, if that is indeed where we end up. Because the big focus is not on the actual content of TGP, but on the fact that Calvinists are contributors and are cited, then I can only assume that the argument leads me to the point that I must consider everything that a Calvinist says as suspect, even if it is also said by non-Calvinist Southern Baptists like RG Lee, WA Criswell, and Adrian Rogers. I cannot believe that Caner or those at SBC Today believe that or want anyone else to believe that, but without a clear line and goal in all of this, that is what one is led to believe.
David, I am not angry. I am pushing for clarity among those who are critiquing TGP and the purported rise of the secret Calvinist agenda in the SBC. What is the End Game? What are we supposed to do? What is the proper line of cooperation? Rick Patrick calls for proportionality. There seems to be a fear that the dangerous ideas of Calvinism will take over if there are not 7 non-Calvinists to every 3 Calvinists on every committee, trustee board, and advisory board in SBC life. Is that really where we want to go?
Do you understand why I am asking these questions? Writing as a non-Calvinistic Baptist, so the arguments of the Trad camp should be appealing to me, at least on a theological level. But, I have no idea what the goal here is.
Alan, I can tell you several things I’d like to see.
#1 Transparency – we’re not going to get that when people dismiss the very real history that those of us have experienced with Calvinism in the SBC over the last decade or so. People at all levels of the denomination know the problems of the “reform” movement and it’s time that it’s admitted there’s a problem and that it be denounced. Instead we get called liars and delusional and accused of gossiping for sharing our first hand accounts of things going on. (it’s not gossip when I say – this happened to me and I read this over here go check it out for yourself)
Transparancy in telling the people in the pews that there is a resurgence among Calvinism in the SBC which isn’t necessarily wrong but people should be aware that we’re not as much on the same page as we used to be so churches have to be aware when they’re seeking staff and at this point they have to be aware when they are sending young people off to Baptist Univerities and Seminirys that there may be a slant that goes against the home churches doctrine.
And I think we’re at the point where all our literature needs to identify the theological leanings of contributors and the resources they are recommending. I don’t have a problem with Calvinists resources but they should labeled – “dig deeper at Desiring God, a reformed resource from John Piper’s Bethelem Baptist Church..” and it would be nice if there were an equal amount of resources from the Trad side – perhaps the resources could be listed as point /counter point (for futher info in how the two SBC streams of theology deal with this issue check out Reformed…. and Trad…..)
I want absolute complete transpency in the NAMB church plants – I want to know what types of churches they are planting and I want to know what those churches founding documents are. I don’t want my CP money to go to a majority of Acts29 Knockoffs – there are serious issues with those churches are set up and I don’t want to give my money to a church who would not allow me to be a member because they require as membership that I have to affirm their Calvinist Statement of Faith. You can’t take my money with one hand but say “you’re kind’s not welcome here”
Accountability – I want people like Al Mohler to be held accountable when he has so easily insulted the people who pay his salary. I also want it to be known far and wide in the SBC that we have one seminary who openly discriminates against Trads and another who appears to going down the same road. Search at Founders for Al Mohler/Abstract and you’ll see he clearly states he uses the Abstract to make sure only those who affirm DOG are allowed on staff. The SBC deserves to know where their money is going.
I would prefer the institutions serve the entire SBC – like what I propose in the point/counter point thing – the institutions don’t take an official stance and present the differing views as much as possible. If that’s not possible and I don’t think it is because the Calvinist are unwilling to give up the control they’ve gained than we need to move toward splitting the baby and making sure the SBC at large knows the baby is being split ie Southern is the Calvinist Seminary and Southwestern the Trad Seminary. I think this would lead to the destruction of the CP. So ideally the solution is we get control of the institutions and make sure there is a place for everyone in the SBC and that no one institution is pushing this doctrine over that.
The biggest argument I see going on right now is this idea that we should stop talking and we should absolutely not inform the people in the pews what’s going on. If it’s acceptable to have a Calvinist Seminary than what’s the harm in telling the people. If the people in the pew don’t like that then shouldn’t we be concerned. Isn’t it rather elitest to just keep information from people because they may not like it and then things are going to have to change or the money will just dry up? The Calvinists are not real up on this idea we should let the SBC at large decide the direction of the SBC. What we’re seeing is a cadre of elite who are making decisons affecting the whole SBC but they’re not at all willing to questioned, held accountable, are be completely upfront with what’s going on. That needs to stop.
So are we going to build subcategories for all literature? or just Reformed folks? Will the Left Behind books be in the “I believe I can fly” section of Lifeway?
Lt. Dan,
Has Forrest Gump been telling you jokes? That one was kind of funny.
David
David,
I ain’t got no time for jokes. I’m too busy shrimpin’
I don’t see the problem with describing the literature. “this material has a Traditionalist slant – go to Trad Statement….. for more info on this view.” Or “this material leans reformed, here’s a resource..” or “this material presents both Trad/Reformed views or this issue is neutral and light and fluffy.” What could be the harm in labeling the material?
And you said you’re 26? Founders has been working to reform the SBC since before you were born. A lot of what they’ve done was begining to be felt back in the 90′s epecially at the time when Mohler was appointed at Southern 94??? and it was really hot for while at the turn of century. A lot of people networked so church committees are a little more savy now than they were. The reform movement has moved into church planting now rather than trying to take over existing churches. But understand before there was The Gospel Coalition, Together for the Gospel, B21, Acts 29 – this reform network or that conference – there was Founders.
Mary,
What about a material such as TGP that doesn’t actually present any Calvinism (as far as we’ve been able to tell so far) and only has several Reformed editors? All of whom believe in sharing the gospel, calling people to repent, etc…????
Sounds like TGP would be in a catergory all by its self. We would have traditional (at least for the past 100 years) Sunday School material listing the Trad (at least for a past several decades) material and TGP all by its self on a shelf in the back of the store next to choir robes.
And before there were the Founders, there were Reformed Baptists. There is a long, rich history.
My spam word is DAN.
First there have always been Calvinist/nonC’sTrads in SBC despite what some Calvinists wish to proclaim. Several have done a lot of work debunking this idea that the “Founders” were all Calvinist and that SBC at it’s founding was completely Calvinist. Makes you wonder what’s happening now to cause so much trouble when Cals/Trads have gotten along up to now.
No one has suggested stashing TGP with the choir robes. I think a desciption of who put together the Gospel Project is in order. I’m not sure why that has to be hidden? And why not give a descriptor of the resources you’re sending readers to? Why not tell who the quotes are coming from – John Piper, reformed pastor at Bethlehen Baptist see Desiring God for more? What is it about giving people information that is so wrong?
Mary,
What Calvinists tries to pass off the information that there were no Trad’s as a part of the founders? I’ve never heard that one.
And we don’t offer a description for any other material such as, “Known: a non calvinist editorial staff so you can feel safe about a potential takeover”
I posted a reply and it somehow goes up thread. This reply thing is bugging me today.
Go find Dan and if you can’t I’ll just have to copy it and try again.
I wouldn’t say there were any of these newfangled “trads” at the founding of the SBC…..you would be hard pressed to find any back that far who denied the imputation of Adam’s guilt to the human race. Plenty of Calvinists though and some non-calvinists too.
You’d be wrong. Peter Lumpkins has pulled some historical evidence for Traditionalism.
Peter Lumpkins needs to read Baptist History
He actually provides evidence to support the fact that Traditionalism has been part of the SBC forever. I know others have gotten into the discussion about the 1925 BFM and there are resources from before that time.
So I’m pretty sure Peter has read a lot of Baptist History since his site is full of source documents from Baptist History.
Did this Emir Caner fella ever publicly apologize for that whole Acts 29 comment scandal?
Mary,
Do you hate everyone? I understand you probably don’t like Acts 29 because they’re Reformed, but can they get a pass for actually planting churches and sharing the gospel? Or does that not matter?
Dear “Lt. Dan”
Correct. I very much need to read Baptist history. Indeed that’s why, in fact, I do so and on my site provide some of the corn I’ve shucked so others who need to read may do so with me. And, if you ever have a notion that I’ve misread a particular piece of history I might post, you have my express permission to challenge my reading of the specific historical slice rather than anonymously posting an obvious but empty assertion “Peter Lumpkins needs to read Baptist History.”
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
I’ve never actually read any of your work other than the Mark Driscoll/Liberty scandal which seemed to turn the Reformed community against you! It was funny.
Please read the new posting guidelines…
Lt. Dan – you should review the archives of Brother Lumpkins’ articles in regard to Baptist history. I have found his summaries of historical documents pertaining to Baptist belief and practice very informative.
abclay
Hope you are having a great day. I do have a question concerning your comment which will betray the fact I disagree somewhat:) – When speaking of the denial of the imputation of Adam’s guilt are you referencing the newfangled Trad language of: “as SOON as they are capable of moral action, they become transgressors” (which of course implies clearly they were not transgressors at conception). If this is the language you are referencing then it might be older than you think. Please take this comment in the light spirit in which it is made and the gentle disagreement we have.
No Alan, It is just that Lifeway should have been upfront from the getgo. Even admitting it was created as a Reformed curriculum to also sell outside the SBC. They have been less than forthcoming. I mean seriously? They did not know the advisors/creators were Calvinists as they claimed? If that is the truth then perhaps we should question their competence for not knowing the theological bent of their advisors/creators? How are such people chosen? By popularity? What is the criteria?
Thank you, Alan. These are very reasonable and valid questions you raise.
Why is the previous comment in moderation? If it is because I responded by saying that “this is becoming laughable,” I apologize. The thrust of this argument is suprising to me and if my response was deemed as offensive, I sincerely apologize. My goal right now is to ask you guys questions and try to figure out for myself where this is all headed – and to see if we cannot chart a more direct approach to getting these questions answered.
For example: Mohler should be questioned an opposed for what he said about the Doctrines of Grace. But, I do not know where TGP fits in all of this.
If you were to read a little work called “The Quiet Revolution” you would see this idea that you have to introduce Calvinism gradually because people can’t handle it all at once. Sorta of “hey this is a great book you should read, it’s by a guy named John Piper.” Or usingwords like Sovereignty frequently and not defining what you actually mean – there’s a boil the pot slowly so the frog doesn’t jump out idea involved here. Since many of us have watched and experienced it first hand in churches we can see how this type of work can be added to and used to slowly turn up the heat.
The fact is that Calvinists and Trads don’t read “quotes” the same way. If you know what John Piper believes you’re going know his thought behind what he’s saying and be able to filter that through what you believe. A lot of people are simply not aware enough of who these people are to – they don’t have enough information to actually be discerning.
Mary, who wrote “The Quiet Revolution”? I’d like to look it up to see what you are talking about.
Ernest Reitsinger (I’m probably spelling his last name incorrectly). I think you can look it up and read it on the Founders website.
Alan,
Ernie Reisinger and D. Matthew Allen wrote it. You really should read it. There are some heavy hitters of the SBC mentioned very prominently in this book…..and possibly their involvement in this endeavor of converting the SBC to Calvinism.
David
Thank you, guys. I will try and check it out.
Here Alan, it might help you understand where some of us are coming from since we actually experienced what was proposed here in our churches.
Founder’s was the first site I found on the internet when about seven years ago now we went through a church split as the result of a Southern Seminary Grad trying to “reform” the church and “recover the Gospel” That experience became surreal when friends from two other churches shared the exact same experiences and we found that a lot of the same terminology was being used. I went to the internet and felt like I’d fallen through the rabbit hole when I found Founder’s and watched in disbelief on the blog as commenters there would openly talk about how to deceive churces – all for the churches own good of course because they were so theologically weak.
The whole site is filled with information about the “conspiricy that only exists in delusional minds” and I think you’ll notice Al Mohler is all over it. So not such a big leap that Founders leads to Mohler, Mohler leads to Akin, Mohler leads Ezell/NAMB planting mostly Calvinist church plants and now for some reason there were only Calvinists available to put together this great new SS curriculum that is filled with quotes and resources pointing to Calvinists. And there’s no question that Al Mohler has been kingmaker in the SBC over the last several years.
http://www.founders.org/library/quiet/
Alan – I found chapter 3 of the “Quiet Revolution” particularly interesting in regard to the “Boyce Project” conducted in the 1970s-80s. That ambitious effort was to republish “Abstract of Systematic Theology” by James P. Boyce and put it in the hands of every student graduating from the six Southern Baptist seminaries at that time. Led by Ernest Reisinger, the “Project” republished and distributed over 12,000 copies of Boyce’s book to SBC seminarians … planting the seeds of reformed theology which took root in some of our churches as these seminary graduates found their way to SBC pulpits. That goal (as now at certain SBC seminaries) was to influence young minds with reformed thinking before they enter ministry.
You can read all about the Boyce Project in Reisinger’s book “A Quiet Revolution” at http://www.founders.org/library/quiet/quiet3.html
So let me get this right …
This terrible revolution started with the re-publishing of the original Southern Baptist theology book. This sounds like a return to the traditional views to me, not the introduction to something new.
Miles and Cliff,
What I hear you saying is, “Who cares if it leans Calvinistic?” Although I think it does matter, your point is secondary to the original question, “Is there indeed Calvinistic bias in The Gospel Project?”
The reason the establishment of bias matters is that the creative team at Lifeway has denied that this can properly be called “Reformed” literature. Because they refuse to identify it as such, the impression given is that First Baptist Church on Main Street might purchase the literature, and in a subtle fashion, eventually be persuaded to embrace reformed theology.
For my part, a bright red sticker on the cover that reads “Reformed Southern Baptist Series” should eliminate any notions of secrecy. It is what it is. Maybe they do have the right to produce it for those Southern Baptists who want it, and for those outside the convention who are clamoring for such theology.
However, they should not present it to the rest of the Southern Baptist Convention as if it were our normal, standard Sunday School fare theologically, because as Dr. Caner and others have taken great pains to demonstrate, it clearly is not.
I’m trying to understand here. The Calvinists really want us to believe that they read and buy books and it’s not important to them to know what it is the author of the book actually believes in how they read the book. They’re telling us that when they read Adrian Rogers or Jerry Vines or Charles Stanley they don’t keep in the back of their mind – this guy thinks differently than me.
Rick,
You wrote
That wasn’t my take. The second question in Cliff’s response helped me understand his point
I agree with Rick. It should be labeled as a Reformed perspective. Lifeway people should call it what it is…. a curriculum for people of the Reformed persuasion. And then, a lot of this chatter about it would be gone….
David
David,
You said in a comment 3 minutes before you posted this one that “you were still undecided on the issue”.
Does this mean that you are now decided on the issue? You believe this does have a “reformed slant” and should be branded with a Scarlet R?
I understand that many reformed people are “blowing their trumpet” about this material, but there are others, too, who are excited about this as well; some of whom have commented on this very thread.
abc,
I am still undecided on the issue. But, I have to say that all Calvinist Advisors, then what I hear from Pastor Green, and then from Dr. Caner, makes me think this literature most certainly does have a heavily Reformed slant to it. And, if it is this way, AND it turns out that it really is this way; then Lifeway should have put that label on the material.
ABC, dont you think that if Lifeway put out some literature that was very much slanted to the Arminian side, that’d it be only fair to put that on the label? To advertise it as such?
David
David,
I hope this ends up in the right place in the comment thread.
Lifeway has been putting out that type of material, and much worse, for years. I’m thankful for a change to biblical (not necessarily calvinist).
In that case, the reason the source matters is that it helps to determine the theological framework out of which they are operating. Rarely would I expect to see Southern Baptists quote the Pope, for example, even though I am sure he discusses love and faith and morality in a manner many of us could, within a certain context, embrace.
Mr. Patrick,
Have you found any of the material, the lessons or the quotes, to be unbiblical to the best of your understanding?
If so, will you provide examples?
ABC,
I dont think that Rick, or any of the others who have problems with this literature, are saying that it’s unBiblical. They’re saying that it most certainly does have a Reformed bias to it. And, as such, should be promoted that way.
I think I’ve even seen some of them say that producing such literature would be fine, if Lifeway would just tell people that that’s what it is….a Reformed perspective.
That’s what I see them saying.
David
Thanks for your thoughtful response. As far as I know, we don’t label things with red stickers stating that they are “Non-Reformed,” series. My point about the individual quotes is actually true of the overall study, if something is biblical and makes the point, it shouldn’t matter who contributed to it. Let’s evaluate this study from the Scriptures not the contributers. The contributers personal stance is a non issue if their product is biblical and makes the point.
Should we put a bright red sticker on everything? I’ve read a lot of humanistic, man-centered garbage that has come from Southern Baptist writers and have not heard much concern from anyone. But, I’d love to have a sticker for those studies as well.
Who gets to manufacture the stickers? Who gets to put them on the literature? Is this something that the Board of Trustees of Lifeway should be considering? Has anyone contacted them? Haven’t the trustees been appointed by SBC presidents? How many Calvinistic presidents have we had that have been stacking the entities with Calvinist trustees to allow for Calvinist employees and Calvinistic agenda in our literature?
There is a conspiracy here, obviously, according to you guys. How do you stop it? What is the End Game?
I’m not sure where it ends, but it begins by admitting there is another major theological stream coursing through the Southern Baptist Convention and it is not the one to which we have grown accustomed.
Hence, the bright red sticker.
And no, we do not need stickers for everything. Everything is not the issue. The issue is a somewhat subtle emphasis on Reformed Theology replacing our traditional SBC view.
Publicly and transparently gaining influence or taking over is fair game if you can do it. But quietly reforming the convention is sneaky and breeds suspicion. I don’t mind an agenda. I mind a HIDDEN agenda.
‘I’m not sure where it ends, but it begins by admitting there is another major theological stream coursing through the Southern Baptist Convention and it is not the one to which we have grown accustomed’
The question is why on earth do the Calvinists have a problem with just telling the people in the pews that there are two streams of thought here? How can information be a bad thing? Let people decide for themselves.
Mary, the problem is because people who hate reformed theology will give a skewed view of it to people. I don’t think anyone here minds the SBC knowing there are reformed brothers in the fold. The problem I have is that those who want to “out” the calvinists also wish to describe it in ways that it has been described here on this web-site, which is not a balanced view at all.
So, I could say that I believe in sovereign grace or others could say that I believe in a God that hates people even though he makes them as evil as they can possibly be, forces them into hell with no choice, ordained evil, keeps people out of the Kingdom who desperately want in, and forces people against their wills to come to him. These are the caricatures I’d like to avoid.
So sure, announce that there are 2 streams, but then let me speak for myself rather than poisoning the water and presenting the whole thing as a conspiracy to do them wrong. My trouble here is that I can’t get you guys to stop hating me long enough to care what I say.
“Mary, the problem is because people who hate reformed theology will give a skewed view of it to people”
Darryl,
Do you mean like telling people only we have the “true gospel”. or telling them if they want to see the nations rejoice for Christ, Trad is the only place for them to go?
That sort of thing? (wink)
So we have to hide information because the people aren’t capable of making decisions for themselves.
Hmmm, seems like this was the kind of attitude that led to the CR.
The poor people in the pews really don’t understand anything and they are so easily deceived by all the wolves prowling through the SBC who hate Calvinism. No elitism there.
Also let me get this straight Calvinists get to talk about Calvinism and Traditionalism – calling Traditionalist heretics etc, explain how wrong and unbiblical Traditionalist are, make comments that the poor dears obviously don’t know what they’re saying. Demand that Traditionalist rewrite their statment to appease them, but now you’re calling on Traditionalist to not discuss their views on Calvinism?
Thanks for so clearly demonstrating my point ladies. Your anger and hatred for what I believe comes through. Am I to believe that either of you would be able to give an accurate description of reformed theology without hyperbole and misrepresentation?
Let me tell you this, I DO have compassion for trads because I WAS one just a few years ago. I don’t expect everyone to agree with me. I CAN tolerate and even embrace trads. I CAN work with them and I can even describe their views with compassion and grace. You guys describe reformed theology as evil and those who believe it as deceptive. Should I make you my spokespersons? I think not.
“Your anger and hatred for what I believe comes through. Am I to believe that either of you would be able to give an accurate description of reformed theology without hyperbole and misrepresentation? ”
Darryl,
Huh? All I did was to take Mohler’s own words concerning New Calvinism and substitute Trad in place of New Calvinism. Does this mean he misrepresented us and was angry and hateful when he said them? Or is “angry and hateful” just reserved for us gals? :o)
Lydia, do you ever deal with the content of a post directly? It’s very frustrating to attempt to speak to someone who always answers with deflection and misdirection. I don’t care what Al Mohler did or said Lydia. I am right here talking to you and I am your brother. Talk to me and stop making statements you hope others will read. Stop trying to win a debate and listen to me. I feel like that is exactly what happens here about half the time. Who cares what is right or true? Just win. Why? Because you think I’m your enemy. I’m not your enemy. Our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers… If we don’t stop hacking and biting at each other, we’re going to end up devouring one another. [shakes head]
Of course I can’t give a definition you would except of reformed theology – if I could I’d be a Calvinist. Only Calvinist understand Calvinism. And now we see that only Calvinist should be allowed to talk about Calvinism and they can continue to say whatever about Trads they choose, but we have to not tell the people in the pews anything because they are easily deceived by all the “hateful” and “angry” people in the SBC.
Darryl you get really mad when people point out what you’re saying. Notice how you resort to the ad homiem against me and Lydia. Because someone shows your thoughts back to you or happens to disagree with you they are hateful and angry.
Mary you don’t know me and it seems you care little to know me. Click my name and you can learn about me. I am not angry. I am broken hearted over this and, yes, frustrated at attempting to explain myself to people who think I just want to win a fight. I could not care less about that. You asked why reformed folks are wary of the labeling of everything and giving every reformed person a scarlet C and I’ve told you why. It’s because of your antagonistic and suspicious view of me as soon as you learnd my theology. I don’t mind folks knowing what I believe but I’d rather it not be presented as the spawn of hell.
And yes I do think I could represent traditionalism very well and in a gracious way. And I have talked to a few trade who could likely do the same for reformed theology. A couple of them have posted in this thread. But it would seek that the regulars here are in too deep. I wouldn’t mind frank page telling folks my views because I really believe he could do it fairly.
Say what you will about me Mary. It’s fine. Have at it.
And Darryl, you don’t know me or Lydia. It’s perfectly exceptable for Calvinists to be “wary” but not exceptable for Trads to be “wary” because of course every single concern a Trad ever voices is a lie and every Trad is only ever influenced by wolves out to destroy Calvinists.
I’m brokenhearted too Darryl. I’m brokenhearted over the lives and churches that have been damaged because Calvinists took the attitude that you demonstrate – people in the pews have been easily decieved by haters of Calvinism and don’t really understand Calvinism so they kept who they were and their plans for the churches to themselves – it’s all for the poor dears own good.
That is not my opinion Mary, never has been. I have nothing against you. I have come here to “attempt” to clarify by beliefs for people. I have never said that your beliefs are wrong or sinful. My beliefs are the ones being condemned and misrepresented here, not yours. My entire family, 2 sisters, a brother, my mother and father, and all my in-laws are traditionalists. You think I hate trads? No. Until 7 years ago, I WAS one. You think I don’t have understanding for where you’re coming from? I do.
And I resent the fact that you would say “my” attitude is what has resulted in your pain. And actually, that may well be the issue. I did not cause you harm but you are taking it out on me and anyone else who comes here to defend what they believe. That is how I have been received by many here, not as a brother, but as an enemy- as the guy coming here whose view must be defeated. That attitude will surely divide our convention, and that is what I would like to avoid. And that’s the only reason I come here. I think that if I can clarify my position then perhaps it won’t be hated so much. Perhaps I’m foolish for thinking so idealistically.
It’s not called The “Traditional” Southern Baptist Project. It’s the Gospel Project.
Rick writes “For my part, a bright red sticker on the cover that reads “Reformed Southern Baptist Series” should eliminate any notions of secrecy.”
A young SBC reformed pastor in my area did a remarkable thing! He painted “Reformed” at the bottom of his church sign and added a section to the church website explaining what reformed theology means. While I may not agree with this young man’s theology, I certainly appreciate his integrity! Now all current and prospective church members know exactly which way he leans. Perhaps a simple solution to this SBC controversy? Paint “Calvinist/Reformed” or “Non-Calvinist/Traditionalist” on all SBC church signs. Just tell us who you are!
I don’t know why I am laughing at this one. I would disagree with #3 though.
“…..because it must be ok because I saw where LifeWay quoted this.”
And this is the real problem. There are many churches within the SBC who wouldn’t dream of buying SS curriculum that’s not from Lifeway. They don’t buy anything for their church from any other source because they feel like they can trust Lifeway.
But times have changed and many of these churches don’t realize that the entire SBC isn’t waiting for the Rapture. Now is it wrong for churches to be so trusting and not examining everything they are presenting to their people. Of course. But it’s the reality. I think Lifeway has a responsibilty to the SBC to provide whatever information it can. If it has a product that was written by a majority of reformed writers and it’s pushing readers to dig deeper with resources by a majority of reformed writers than it needs to tell people.
But these debates remind me of times on the blogs when people would talk about men going into churches and not being upfront with the search committee. These men would defend themselves with the idea “it’s their own fault for not knowing anything” or “when they I asked me if I was a Calvinist I just said no because I knew they had no idea what they were talking about.” It’s the elitism and the idea that the people get what they deserve if they are uninformed. And as I’ve also stated it’s also a way tha we’ve seen Calvinists in the SBC use the tactic of turning up the water slowly so the frog doesn’t jump out of the pot.
Mary: Where has any minister who has been asked if they were Calvinist flat said no because no one knew what they were talking about. I don’t believe that has happened. Let’s stick to the facts and with proof. If you can prove it, it’s gossip designed to destroy. That is definitely in scripture as sin.
Debbie, I do know men who have done this. What would you do with proof? If I gave you a name, do you plan to call that Pastor? If you find out that he doesn’t like labels, and refused to define himself by “Calvinist” or “Reformed” but feels better about saying he is historic Baptist would you be moved? Would you suddently accept that this is deception and quietly go away from this debate?
Donald: I would be more apt to believe it. It wouldn’t sound as if one was demonizing someone aka the ends justifies the means. Proof is what we as Christians should be happy to provide when castigating someone. Even the Bible says proof when accusing is a must. Gossip is too prevalent among Christians unfortunately. And too many want to be right no matter what they have to do win the war.
That was one of the problems six years ago and it was one of the problems in the CR. Right as the CR might have been, innocents were victims of vicious lies and rumor and good men and women were needlessly destroyed. We should learn from that.
But, I am not demonizing/castigating anyone. I am giving eyewitness testimony as to what I have experienced firsthand. I will not broadcast accusations at a Pastor over the internet, as these issues have to be handled locally and preferably face-to-face.
If I declared that half the Church members in town were Lost, I would do so without naming names for strangers on the internet to try and “proof” me.
The point here is not to “out” a particular Pastor. These experiences are widespread and to summarily dismiss them all is to choose your spin over truth.
I will declare the truth, as that is all I can do.
I don’t get the gossip thing when I’m telling my personal first hand experiences and not mentioning names.
There are people who will believe every detail of certain types of victims stories, people who have been spiritually abused, feel their pain and get angry over abuse yada yada. These people don’t demand nitty gritty details “what day did this happen? give the names and numbers so I can confirm for myself …..” but those same people see stories of abuse by Calvinists and immediately dismiss that it’s possible people have been abused by Calvinists in the name of Calvinism. They go on the attack against the victims – they’re all liars, delusional, “gossips” out to destroy lives. The Calvinism is more important to them than the lives that have been affected.
Debbie,
I am confused on your insistence for proof and outing names of churches/pastors/victims.
You are a supporter of the Wartburg Watch, where Wade has an echurch, are you not? Dee and Deb made a promise a while back not to name names of not only churches in the wrong but of their victims. Do you have a problem with their policy? Would you insist the same of them now?
I always thought this was interesting because that site tells a lot of the same stories in the comments that we’ve been sharing on SBC blogs for years and yet she’s never attacked over there the way she feels free to do on the SBC blogs. Are they all liars and sinners too – gossiping and destroying lives?
Lydia: I didn’t believe it at first. I checked out every piece of evidence they laid out. I checked it and rechecked it. I believed them. I believed the evidence. I had dinner with Dee and Deb when they were in Enid and we talked for quite awhile. So yes, I have always required evidence.
When I was blogging I provided evidence of anything I wrote.
If you read Wartburg, Dee and Deb are meticulous on researching, corresponding compassionately with the victims. They are meticulous on detail and getting the story right with evidence. Tom Rich who I am friends with and have corresponded with by phone and email is the same way. He provides irrefutable evidence. So again, yes.
I think Debbie is right. We are not even permitted by Scripture to accept an accusation about a pastor or leader in the church without 2 or 3 witnesses (1Tim5:19). So, what happens when there isn’t even evidence? Gossip I would think. Just my thoughts.
Sam I am
Sam I am, there are more than two or three witnesses. Witnesses from all over the country who’ve seen the same things.
And if we can’t share first hand experiences without telling names than no one can actually talk about anything at all can they? Since everytime you tell anything in your life you’d be guilty of “gossip” If I said today my son did this, this, and this than I’m guilty of gossip against him aren’t I? Your defintion of gossip is impossibly broad to mean anything at all.
The definition of gossip:
gos·sip
1. conversation about personal matters: conversation about the personal details of other people’s lives, whether rumor or fact, especially when malicious
2. casual conversation: informal conversation or writing about recent and often personal events
3. habitual talker: somebody who habitually discusses the personal details of others’ lives
FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS ARE NOT GOSSIP. I CAN’T GOSSIP ABOUT MYSELF. If I said “wait til you hear what happened at the Piggly Wiggly today” – that’s gossip. If I say this event happened to me it’s not gossip – if talking about myself means gossip then I would never be able to tell any experience I have ever had with any other person which is of course ridiculous. Insults are hurled because you don’t like what’s being said – those are personal attacks for no reason but you don’t like what the person is saying.
Good point, Mary. Without “naming names”, calling it gossip would be too harsh. I’m honestly not up on the supposed takeover of Calvinism anyway. I haven’t seen it firsthand, so I wouldn’t know.
Personally, I don’t think a takeover in the SBC by Calvinism would be a good thing. Yes. I learn toward Calvinism. Still though I like the diversity of the church and find fellowship and mutual respect of Calvinists, historic Baptists, Arminians, Traditionalists and whoever else there is who hold to the true gospel in the SBC to be a good thing. It is good to learn from each other iron-sharping-iron.
Be blessed.
Sam I am
Sam, people simply throw out the “you’re a gossip” card to try to silence those they disagree with. Just think about how ridiculous it is to tell everyone “you cannot ever share a personal experience from your life, especially if I don’t like what you’re saying.” It’s a form of spiritual abuse to label people who are sharing what they have personally gone through as sinners. It’s one thing to say “I don’t believe that” which is calling someone a liar and just mean because you don’t want to believe what they’re saying but it reaches the level of being spiritually abusive to throw spiritual sin labels on people. There are Calvinist in the SBC who will defend Calvinism at any cost and they don’t care who they abuse to do it. There are Calvinists who are out to silence all dissent.
Debbie, I’ve seen happen in my life. I’m not delusional, I’ve seen it happen. And furthermore for anyone who has the time they can just go back in the archives of Founders blog and find several commentors boldly bragging about doing it. Calling people liars or delusional because they’ve had experiences you wish to dismiss doesn’t help your cause.
Can you link or give reference to these sources Mary? That is all I am asking for. I can’t believe anything I can’t see or read for myself. Especially when people’s reputations are at stake.
I have read a lot of Founders in the past few months, more than I ever have as I am not a Founder. I have not seen the things you are speaking of. Where have I missed in my reading?
Go back to the comments in the years of I’d say 05 on and you’ll find lot’s of bragging in the threads and comments on how Calvinists have to not be up front with search committees because the poor dear idiots just didn’t know enough to understand anything about anything.
I’ve never heard of search. I actually find that search committees know the basics and ask questions about Calvinism. Much of the stuff search committees have heard about Calvinism make it out to be the boogie man, but they still know.
*I’ve never heard of such
On founders.org there is guidance given on how a Pastor can reform a non-Calvinist church. I have cut and pasted a few practical suggestions given. Please read these with the proper scenario in mind, a Pastor is taking a position at a non-Calvinst church with the intention of making the church Calvinist. Please explain how this could be done without hiding his current theological position and without hiding his intentions to “reform” the church.
———————————————–
Don’t try any reformation until you have earned some spiritual credibility with the church.
The first suggestion is study the Biblical principle of accommodation.
When should they be implemented? Don’t try to do too much too soon.
The principle of restraint. Don’t tackle the whole church at one time. Choose a few men who are sincere, teachable, and spiritually minded, and spend time with them in study and prayer. They will help you to reform.
Exercise common sense.
Don’t use theological language that is not in the Bible, in the pulpit, such as, Calvinism, reformed, doctrines of grace, particular redemption etc. Most people will not know what you are talking about.
Often you will find, particularly, in older churches, a statement expressing the doctrines which you desire to establish. Hide behind these articles of faith. Hide behind our Baptist fathers, such as Bunyan, Spurgeon, Fuller, Boyce, Dagg, Broadus, Manly, W.B. Johnson, R.B.C. Howell and B.H. Carroll.
Use sound literature, not indiscriminately, but wisely. Little things at first, that is, pamphlets and books with some doctrinal and experimental substance.
The principle of priorities must be applied. You can’t change everything at once—first things first.
The principle of two churches must be before us at all times.
People might also find it interesting the language about Calvinism being the only biblical theology and everything else being man centered …..
And then you get the details of how Resienger had a project to put the Abstract of Priniciples into every Seminrian’s hand and the other things they were doing to push the DOG back in the late 70′s. So many including Tom Ascol try to describe the resurgence of Calvinim as somehow “organic” when in fact these men did a lot of work which is the foundation of the YRR today. I’m firmly convinced that without Founder’s books like Desiring God would be collecting dust in some warehouse somewhere. These guys were pushing Calvinims before many who post on these blogs were born. They’v been very patient.
Donald, Thanks for posting those. It is insidious. It is not how Jesus Christ operated or taught us to operate in the Body of Christ. I spoke with a woman recently who left her SBC church of 20 years that was being slowly reformed. She said, by the time you figure it out, it is too late and they have consolidated power. (your list makes it clear that is the plan) She told me: we figured out that so many things were being done in secret but when we would finally inquire we were told we were untrusting of our new ‘leaders’ and some were even “disciplined” by having their teaching posts taken away if they disagreed with the direction or changes. They were at one time congregational polity. What used to be decided as a group was not decided behind closed doors by a few.
And no I won’t mention the church or the woman’s name. She wants no more trouble as she was identified as a troublemaker and lost what she had thought were her friends that went with the “leaders”. She lost her church of 20 years and the new guys have taken over. People have to out themselves. It is not our place.
Debbie, I am confused on your insistence for proof. You are a supporter of the Wartburg Watch, correct, where Wade has an echurch? Dee and Deb made a promise not to name names of not only churches in the wrong but of their victims. Do you have a problem with their policy? Would you insist the same of them?
This reply thing is making me crazy.
“Ecumenism, a liberal theological movement that emphasizes unity between denominations over theological distinction, replaces any emphasis upon Southern Baptist theology”
Is it really a true Ecumenism or is it an effort to go outside the SBC to cooperate with Calvinists? If the majority of the quotes taken from outside the SBC are from Calvinists, does that tell us something? Are groups like Together for the Gospel and the Gospel Coalition really just Together for Calvinism and The Calvinism Coalition? Where are we seeing SBC Calvinists cooperate with nonSBC nonCalvinists? Or is their emphasis on making the tent bigger and “cooperating” really about trying to bring in more Calvinists to the SBC?
The Fall 2012 adult leader book (already in print and available for review) includes the following:
W.A. Criswell – quoted multiple times
Herschel Hobbs – quoted multiple times
Adrian Rogers – quoted multiple times
“Other Recommended Resources” from:
Paige Patterson
W.A. Criswell
Jim Shaddix
Philip Yancey & Paul Brand
Ted Traylor
Jeff Iorg
Tim Stafford
Grant Osborne
Thanks for that information Fred!
It’s funny that you have Criswell – just recently over at Voices someone was insisting that he was a Calvinist.
Could you give us the breakdown of the other people quoted and listed as recommended resources? You know kinda how Caner broke it down for us in the original OP ED.
No, Mary. The books are easy enough for you to get.
My point was to show that the original post presented a rather one-sided view of the curriculum, in particular his remarks about Baptist heroes. It’s telling that no one is disputing the substance in the quotes from Calvinists, only that they don’t want to see them in there.
OK Fred, so you weren’t trying to make the point that Trads/NonCal are equally quoted/resourced because if that were the case you could break that down for us.
And you miss a big point being made – it’s not about having Calvinist quotes and disputing what is being said. It’s questioning why is it that those being listed as resources and those quoted are overwhelmingly Calvinists? Don’t we want readers to go to those additional resources and dig deepeer into those quotes. Are we now claiming that those additional resources are not going to be Calvinist/reformed teachings? But pushing resources that teach Calvinism is not trying to push readers to read more Calvinism?
Mary: Criswell was Calvinist. He said this himself in the sermon I linked to. In fact he said this in several sermons.
Tell it to Fred Debbie.
It is my hope that TGP becomes something I would like to use in my church.
The whole concept and idea is great. It looks well done. The fact that it seems to be encouraging readers with quotes and resources to dig deeper into Calvinism is disturbing and must be remedied. Unfortunately, they’ve already got I guess the first year printed and those are in the hands of people who might be encouraged to “dig deeper” without understanding the theological leanings of those they’re being pushed toward.
Donald,
Amen.
David
Okay. So, now we have quotes in the Fall curriculum by Criswell, Hobbs, and Adrian Rogers as well as recommended resources from a host of non-Calvinists and Southern Baptists as well? You mean, if you go past just the first two lessons, you see a host of non-Calvinistic Southern Baptists quoted and recommended? Really?
So far, we have Matt Chandler being listed as non-SBC because his church is BGCT, a hymn in the Baptist Hymnal being listed as non-Baptist because it is also in the Presbyterian Hymnal, a concept spoken by RG Lee, WA Criswell, and Adrian Rogers being suspect because it was also spoken by Calvin, and an attack against the material because it does not have non-Calvinistic Southern Baptists in the first two lessons, but it turns out that it does have them in other lessons throughout the Fall?
What I get from this article is that I can only read the writings of non-Calvinistic, Traditionalist Southern Baptists when their ideas have not been articulated by others in Orthodox Christianity.
Sounds kind of scary to me.
It sounds scary to me too Alan. And have any of these lessons been checked next to scripture to see if the lessons are true? I have not seen this. We are supposed to believe in an inerrant Bible, yet I have not seen the Bible used as a sign that these lessons are not Biblicaly sound. All I have seen in both Dr. Green and Dr. Caner’s reviews is quotes from those who are not Traditionalists or even Calvinists or sound like Calvinists even though they are the people you mention Alan, such as Adrian Rogers.
We say the Bible is inerrant, it should be the final say. Take the scriptures given in the lesson and read them seeing if what is being taught in the lesson isn’t sound. If that doesn’t happen, the CR definitely was fought for nothing more than power and control.
“And have any of these lessons been checked next to scripture to see if the lessons are true? I have not seen this. We are supposed to believe in an inerrant Bible, yet I have not seen the Bible used as a sign that these lessons are not Biblicaly sound”
It is the hermeneutic used that is the problem. It would be a waste of time to discuss verses when the hemeneutics are coming from totally different perspectives. A Calvinist looks through the Augustinian filter which some of us totally disagree with this since it is based on neo Platonic thought.
And since this is to be a “cradle to grave” curriculum of the Grant Narrative of Scripture, I am having a problem understanding how a Calvinist with that Augustinian filter could help but include that perspective in the curriculum. Even subtly.
That is why I think labeling the material as Reformed is the honest thing to do. And I understand that Calvinists might not want to label it as “Calvinist”.
Conversely, I have no problem with those who believe we have some form of free will (we CAN obey God when saved) have a label for their materials. I realize this will get complicated but perhaps the background of all authors and their theological bent would be helpful.
Personally, I would rather just read Jesus myself and pray for the Holy Spirit, Who is the best teacher, to illuminate truth to me. But I do know that is not as profitable. to encourage people to do that and study with all the tools for free at their fingertips.
Lydia,
Okay. Can we then show where a Calvinistic hermeneutic is used? For example, I have a real problem with Covenant Theology as a theolgical system. Is that being employed here? If so, you have won me over. In what way is a Calvinistic Hermeneutic being employed in TGP? That kind of critique would be helpful.
Thanks in advance.
There was a comment over at Voices that Jim G gave on his take where some definitions or concepts would need to be explained/expounded upon but he only saw the samples as far as I am aware.
Again, my question is more this: Can a Calvinist write a curriculum that does not include that Augustinian filter that presents a determinist/decretal God even if subtle? I do not think it is likely. However, I think it would be a tad easier to avoid strict CT, NCT or Dispy views in such a curriculum as this Grand Narrative.
But, “God” is the whole point of the curriculum from OT to NT and our Redeemer. So if one has a view of
God as decretal and determinist how can that possibly not be communicated somewhere, even subtly? See, I happen to agree God is Sovereign. I just don’t agree with Calvinists on what that means. So are definitions given in this curriculum showing a Calvinist understanding of what are common terms?
All this brings me to another question. Could a Calvinist theologian/pastor write a neutral curriculum they don’t even agree with in totality because of omission or lack of depth with key concepts of their doctrine?
I just do not like to see people indoctrinated even if subtle. I prefer people be told upfront this is written by Reformed theologians/pastors.
Lydia,
So really, I guess that you see everything that a Calvinist says as suspect because he/she is a Calvinist? I don’t want to put words in your mouth or accuse you of anything – I do want to be fair, so please correct me if I have misread you. I am very open to correction. But, as I read you it appears as though you are saying that because Calvinists fundamentally have a different view of God than you, then when a Calvinist says, “God is love,” you are wary because they might be pushing a Calvinistic, deterministic agenda that is incorrect? Is that what you are saying?
If so, and if I have not misread you, then the only answer can be that no Calvinist anywhere should be teaching, writing, or promoting anything in Baptist life at all – or at the very least, they should not be doing it without a big disclaimer that they are promoting a Calvinistic view in everything that they say accompanied by an explanation as to the implications of that view and its dangers.
If that is not what you are shooting for, I will accept that. I really am just trying to move past the criticisms and on to what actions the Trads want taken over this issue.
Hey Alan, Sorry I did not see this sooner. I was emailed and told you asked me some questions.
First of all, I did not sign the Trad document so I am not worthy to answer for them. I did not sign because I cannot in good faith advise people not to sign creeds or “membership covenants” (which are usually vetted by lawyers first, ironically) that end up being “control” shepherding type documents.
Here is my take on it living at ground zero. Many are not being upfront about their strategy to bring the “true Gospel” to non Calvinst churches. That is my experience and the experience of many I know in SBC circles here.
I say, proclaim boldly one is a Calvinist upfront and let folks know you do not think they have the true Gospel. But that would not work, would it? (This is why I think they became so serious about “church planting” for jobs for the YRR coming out of seminary and why we have partnered with the reprobate Driscoll and his DNA all over Acts 29 and now possibly the blackmailer, Mahaney, former Apostle of the Shepherding cult, People of Destiny)
I meet weekly with a group that is outside the institutional church for prayer, study, fellowship. Many of them are Reformed or leaning that way! I would say about half of about 20 people. And they are my dear brothers and sisters. But we knew that going in and they do not seek position or power over others. Nor do they tell us we are wrong for our interpretations. It does not have to be a deal breaker. They are not claiming that only they want to see the nations rejoice for Christ or that we are heretics of some variation. In fact, many of them are disgusted by such divisive words. I do not hate “Calvinists”. I hate what the indocrination is doing to those coming out of our seminaries. And I place that blame soley on our leaders who model that thinking with divisive words and insults. And who should know better.
I believe the entire Calvinist resurgence is more about power than doctrine. I think the focus on the doctrine is really the rally cry for the young troops. But I do think Calvinist “thinking” favors the authoritarian model of elder rule and makes it easier to rally around with the thought of followers and having authority over them. I think it is quite worldly in many ways. Many seem to map Soverienty of God to the Sovereignty of elders. :o) In fact, I think we would all get along fine with our differences if some of our leaders/professors/celebrities would go away and stop indoctrinating the young who do not have the wisdom or experience to handle it.
I call it the bullification of Christendom.
Allen, Your logic and line of thinking is tremendously flawed. I can assure you that not one person in the SBC gives a rip who you read. That is your business. However, we send our children, teenagers and college students, our adults attend S S classes that are Southern Baptist. We fully intend on what we get from the SBC to be in keeping with what we as SB believe and accept. When a curriculum is unveiled as being just that and then we see its certainly slanted to the reform and heavy on non-SBC scholars that violates our trust we have in Lifeway. You are comparing two different things. Let me assure your fears that have gripped you, read whatever you want. However, if our Sunday School board is going to produce something that is this heavy with non-SBC individuals who are reformed, identify the material as such.
One final thought, Sunday school has been designed through the years so each lesson can stand alone and first time visitors were not handicapped. It was designed with people in mind who were two years in the faith and 25 years in the faith. By design it has been somewhat remedial. This has been an intentional philosophy not the results of poor scholars. Some people need to get over themselves.
Dean,
I had the context of Sunday School and Lifeway material in mind when I wrote my response. I do understand the discussion that we are having here.
My point remains: Are we saying that we will only be happy if Lifeway only produces materials written by non-Calvinist SBC writers/theologians who are saying things that have only ever been said by non-Calvinist SBC pastors/theologians and have never been uttered or sung by anyone else in orthodox Christianity?
I would assume not. My question is even absurd and I do not accuse anyone here of consciously advocating that position. To do so would mean that you are a great schismatic and even quite possibly a heretic. I am not accusing anyone of that. But, to take the arguments here and put them together in a coherent form, that is what you are left with, even if it is unintended, which I assume that it is.
Alan this is your post “What I get from this article is that I can only read the writings of non-Calvinistic, Traditionalist Southern Baptists when their ideas have not been articulated by others in Orthodox Christianity.
Sounds kind of scary to me.”
I will state one more time that you are free to read what you want – even in Sunday school. Tgp has been misrepresented to me by Lifeway as for as I’m concerned. I don’t care if it’s reform. However reform teachings fall outside the norm of the overwhelming majority of SBC churches. State it is what it is. Do apply the camo to the material. As for as who writes the material, I’m having a hard time not stating the intelligence level of a statement that points to two lessons only and says these writers are not using reform hermeneutics. Do you think they want teach their beliefs? Really? Can Creflo Dollar preach long without mentioning the prosperity gospel? He may for weeks but it is who he is and has to come out.
Should read don’t apply the camo
Dean,
I attempted to clarify what I was referring to. You can accept my clarification or not. By saying “read” I was referring to what we use as Sunday School literature. I apologize for being unclear initially and I accept full blame for the confusion. It is my fault, not yours. Having said that, my clarification attempted to make the point that it seems that Dr. Caner is questioning TGP on the basis of not having enough non-Calvinist SBC authors who only say things that have never been said by other leaders in other theological streams – or sung by them either. Now, again, I do not believe that he would agree with that assessment nor do I think that it is fair because it would be a ridiculous argument. But, in reading his post, that is all that I am left with because he doesn’t actually deal with content. His objections are limited to the fact that the writers are mostly Calvinists and they are using illustrations and hymns that are also used by non-SBC’ers from the past.
I can only assume these things:
1. That we should only be taught by non-Calvinist, SBC leaders who only say/sing what has never been said/sung by any other non-SBC orthodox Christian, or,
2. That Calvinist influence in the SBC is nefarious even when they are NOT talking about Calvinism, per se, or,
3. That committees in SBC life need to include non-Calvinist, Traditionalist SBC’ers to spread their influence at a greater preponderance than they are influenced by Calvinists, or,
4. There is some kind of undefined, hidden, Calvinist agenda present in the literature that we should all beware of, but no one can tell us where it is or show us – we should just assume that is there because the Calvinists are there.
Maybe there is some other conclusion that I could take from this post and perhaps I am completely wrong. I can be wrong far more often than I like. I am just trying to figure out the goals here and I still cannot quite wrap my arms around what the End Game is.
Thank you for the info. Was this info available when Dr. Caner wrote the article? That might pose to be an issue with the article if it was. However this info may well not have been available.
I have found as a pastor for 18 years that the past Lifeway material has never been anything to brag about at all. That is why we write most our own study outlines and actually require our teachers to…uhm…be teachers.
This wouldn’t be an issue if we didn’t lean on a convention to do what the Church should be doing in the first place. We send money to by material because we are too lazy to actually study, we send money to the CP because we are to lazy to actually go (not that helping others go is bad but it does not negate the command to each of us). I say WE because I have been guilty also, it is we. Maybe we should equip our people to actually teach with the Bible and some solid Bible helps and to stop relying on prepared lessons by others. Just an honest thought here.
Alan Davis
Ok,
My last post popped up in the wrong spot, just disregard please.
A. Davis
“I say WE because I have been guilty also, it is we. Maybe we should equip our people to actually teach with the Bible and some solid Bible helps and to stop relying on prepared lessons by others. Just an honest thought here.’
Amen, Alan.
I can personally understand how some non-calvinists could be skeptical about this material having a Reformed bent when considering the irrefutable fact that the majority of the writers of this material are Reformed.
We have yet to see any evidence from the material itself that validates this skepticism.
What is happening is sad. A thought provoking, theologically-rich Sunday School curriculum, that a starving flock is in dire need of, is being “drug through the mud”.
agreed
Abclay, I can assume the flock you speak of is your church or is the SBC seen as one starving flock?
I’m assuming the SBC is seen as starving given our current numbers and decline.
But the Mormans and the Muslims are doing great!
And you should check out yesterdays post cuz this one Calvinist was telling us how Calvinist are super evangelizers but then he wouldn’t tell us how many people he baptized in his church because numbers don’t matter you see.
Please fill in for my lack of understanding concerning this issue as I seem to be joining it in the middle.
My impression is that the problem with quoting John Piper, for example, is that he is Baptist General Conference and not SBC. How is this not doing as
the Corinthians did when Paul wrote: What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas ”;
still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized into the name of Paul? (1 Cor.\” 1:12-13)
Would Gregg Allison be fine to quote now that he teaches at an SBC seminary while he would have been problematic when he taught at a non-SBC Baptist seminary?
Is my ordination as an SBC pastor enough for my views to be considered or do I carry a taint from my non-SBC days that renders my views irrelevant to
this discussion??
Thanks.
Ralph,
See, here is the problem. You confess you do not know what is going on and you are now joining in the conversation in the middle. But then you present items that have already been discussed. From your presentation, you have been in the conversation from the start but you may not have commented. Now you are presenting questions as if you really are looking the answers. We have already told everyone it is not about another person’s ministry. It is about the reformed leaning that is clearly documented and the theological
pushshove down the throats of 85% of the SBC.Emir Caner,
Thanks for a very helpful review of The Gospel Project.
Hope everyone carefully reads your article.
David R. Brumbelow
Thank you so much for your analysis. After reading multiple comments on several different blogs it looks as if calvinists and traditionalists are actually opposed in theology. I see no unity. Three churches in our small town in Georgia have split over calvinism. The fact is oil and water don’t mix well. Why do the reformed want to take over the SBC? Why don’t you just start your own convention? If God is in your movement He will surely bless it. Where is your faith? I do not want my money supporting reformed churches, and it is my belief that most of the people sitting in the pew would agree. I can respect reformed Christians but I am not one and most Southern Baptists aren’t either.
I’m not sure this is an issue worth splitting over. The harm that a split would cause is far greater than any benefits we might dream of. The public perception alone would be detrimental.
This is just a symptom of bigger issues that have been boiling for over a decade now.
Then we need to repent of a decades worth of stupidity
We can’t agree on who’s stupid and we can’t agree on who should decide who is stupid and who shouldn’t get to have the keys to the all the toys.
abclay,
It is no secret that two theological groups have been engaged in conversation for the last several years in the SBC
This entire LifeWay matter could have been avoided by appointing a more balanced cadre of SBC theologians, writers, and advisors from the Traditional and more Calvinistic camps. That was not done. One camp is giving some push-back and one group is saying, “Shush!”
As a teacher using Young Adult materials for several years … I noticed the continual pointing in the sidebar to resource the sermons of Mark Driscoll and other more reformed guys. When I hear someone say … “don’t worry, trust us with this new material” … sorry, the material will be under much scrutiny for a long time — and it should be under the circumstances.
Blessings!
Ron,
Amen.
David
Ron writes “As a teacher using Young Adult materials for several years … I noticed the continual pointing in the sidebar to resource the sermons of Mark Driscoll and other more reformed guys.”
Ron – There’s no doubt that LifeWay’s young adult Sunday School literature has been slanted in a reformed direction for some time. Our church uses the Life Matters “Threads” material produced by LifeWay. Last year, I complained to LifeWay’s editor of these publications about the extensive use of marginal notations pointing students to sermons, articles, books, websites, and blogs by leading influencers of the New Calvinism movement. For example, in the Winter 2010/2011 Life Matter’s issue on my desk, I note that students are referred predominantly to Calvinists for extracurricular readings/sermons, including: Joshua Harris, John Piper, Matt Chandler, Francis Chan, Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, C.J. Mahaney, and others. Students are also directed to popular musicians such as Matt Redman and Chris Tomlin who are linked to the reformed movement. There are frequent marginal notes highlighting Piper’s Desiring God website, as well as Driscoll’s Resurgence site. Visiting either of these will take you on a linked tour of who’s-who and what’s happening in New Calvinism … from the newest book to recommended conferences/events. However, it should be noted that recent issues of Life Matters appear to have addressed this subtle approach to introducing young adults to a reformed “thread” (perhaps others complained as well), as I don’t see as many marginal references of this sort compared to issues produced in 2010-2011 and perhaps earlier.
Based on this experience, my antennae were already up when I first heard about LifeWay’s “The Gospel Project.” When the list of TGP writers and advisers appeared, I must admit that I formed an opinion without reading the materials … so waited for reviews by others to come forth to confirm or dispute what I was feeling. The careful reviews provided by Pastor Green and Dr. Caner support my overriding concern that such materials are intended to effect a generational shift in SBC ranks to reformed theology, targeting primarily young folks. Sunday School departments throughout SBC need to be vigilant in this regard.
If the reformed movement within SBC ranks want non-Calvinists to get off their bandwagon about conspiracy theories, they need to stop giving us so much evidence.
Max,
You wrote much more convincingly that I did and it is good to actually hear from a “user” of the materials and one that has personally seen, read, and thought about the actual materials — even before the Gospel Project.
I mentioned these names used by LifeWay on a blog about two years ago and it was picked up by … Associated Baptist Press and others — I think I used the phrase, “It looks like we are hyper on Piper.” Anywho … a LifeWay writer of that section did track me down and call me on the phone. I think it was a … intimidation call. Since, I have received a call from NAMB on another little matter … it seems intimidation calls must be a tactic of the New Elites to shush up those that do speak out on certain issues. Very Sad!
Intimidation, control, manipulation, and arrogance are not Spiritual gifts.
If I were the devil, I’d get the largest Protestant denomination in America embroiled in a theological debate which would distract them from reaching lost souls for Christ.
“…it seems intimidation calls must be a tactic of the New Elites to shush up those that do speak out on certain issues. Very Sad!”
This is the way it works. Sadly, few actually believe it unless they experience first hand. And that means it only continues, usually works and gets worse.
I guess instead of Mark Driscoll and John Piper could they have been sent to SBCers like Steven Furtick, Perry Noble, or Ed Young, Jr.? Instead of Matt Redman and Chris Tomlin could they have been sent to Hillsong, Vineyard, or Lenny LaBlanc (author of “He took the fall and thought of me above all”)? Should SBC churches never sing songs written by Reformed writers? That leaves out many hymns and some great new songs to boot. I’m a music minister and I’m curious as to the extent of these implications. Should we only sing music written by Traditional Southern Baptists or at least a similar theological leaning?
Hi Dan – the issue for me (as many others in this comment thread) is that “The Gospel Project” and certain other LifeWay literature (e.g., the young adult material I referenced) is that … at the very least … there should be a theological balance of contributors in the materials presented.
As a music minister, I’m sure you are aware of concerns in LifeWay’s 2008 revision of the Baptist Hymnal. Songs referring to Christ’s death as an atonement for everyone and not just the elect – like “Whosoever Will” and “Whosoever Meaneth Me” didn’t make the cut by the revision team. Neither did “Oh What a Wonder It Is”, with its “all who would believe in Him, He’d save them every one” or “Holy Bible, Book of Love”, which proclaims that Christ “died for everyone.” I’m sure the revision team was simply trying to make room for newer Christian music or publish only theologically-sound hymns, but I sure do miss those old songs in LifeWay’s new hymnal.
Dr. Caner:
I want to thank you, Ralph Green, and the staff at sbctoday.com for informing us on this vital issue. When The Calvinist Flyswatter first reported on this back in January we knew it was going to be bad. After all, asking a New Calvinist to be balanced is like asking a wild boar to walk a tightrope.
Bless you. Bless Peter Lumpkins for his reporting. Bless all who are consistently standing up for the SBC that I know (knew) and love.
Charles
I think we’re making a big deal out of nothing,but I could be wrong! I downloaded the first four lessons for students and the material certainly does not push Calvinism. So, if First Baptist on Main Street purchases the material I seriously doubt they will one day magically wake up as Calvinist (unless they were predestined to do so ;)). Much of the confusion could have been avoided if they appointed a broader group of editors, but that doesn’t fix the real issue. If the board was a bit more broad, I’m sure someone would find something they don’t like and blow up the Southern Baptist blogs.
Everyone seems to point out that several of the editors and contributors are Reformed and that is true. But please take time to actually look at the content of the material before you make a judgement. The editors have proven to be godly men who are committed to sharing the gospel with the nations. They are not heretics and we should not take them outside the camp and stone them. Just because they are Reformed does not mean they will secretly slip Calvinism into the Sunday School material. The editors have proven themselves time and time again, please don’t accuse them of a secret conspiracy to resurrect John Calvin and crown him as king of the SBC.
As a 26 year old and member of the SBC, I\’m growing quite tired of this debate. The SBC is slowly loosing it\’s influence, we\’re seeing fewer and fewer people attending churches in our denomination, the culture is growing more hostile to the gospel, and we want to argue about a Sunday School material that was wrote by a few Reformed dudes (who don\’t even push Calvinism in the material). We are causing division over secondary issues and we have drifted from our mission. We need to have discussions regarding Reformed theology, but this discussion should never breed hate or cause us to look down upon each other. We should be doing all we can to unite within our denomination, not cause a split. If you want to keep young guys in the SBC, the division around this topic must stop.
We should all search our souls, fix our eyes on Christ, and move forward with the mission of taking the gospel to the nations and making disciples. Discussions such as these can be healthy and uplifting, but it must be done with a spirit of grace and love. I’m sure several of us are guilty of negativity toward those with opposing views, myself included, and for that we must repent.
Lt. Dan,
For one thing, you cussed waaaay too much in the Gump movie. It almost made me turn it off and not watch it.
Secondly, do you think the New Calvinists would have raised the SBC roof, if Lifeway came out with literature, which had all Trad advisors….had quotes from Trad types 10 to 1 over Calvinists….encouraged people to look mostly at videos of Emir Caner, Adrian Rogers, Eric Hankins, Jerry Vines…..and approached the Bible from a strictly Trad, or non Calvinist viewpoint? Honestly? what do you think we’d be hearing from the Calvinist blogs?
David
Hopefully nothing as long as what the men were saying clearly lined up with the Scriptures. Won’t you agree that we’ve made this an idol for several years now? And I’m sure you’d agree that we have bigger fish to fry right now.
PS – I’m reformed and it doesn’t bother me if Lifeway produced a material such as what you described. Even though I’m reformed, I would never identify myself as a Calvinist because that would infer that I believe everything that Calvin ever taught (which I don’t). Even though I tend to lean Reformed, I have zero desire to push that on my flock. I’m not a secret agent sent to overthrow the SBC and install a cruel Calvinistic dictator!
Can anyone tell me the level of Calvinist influence on the other curriculum lines from Lifeway?
Bill Mac – see my comment upstream regarding LifeWay’s young adult literature: August 22, 2012 at 12:29 pm
“Secondly, do you think the New Calvinists would have raised the SBC roof, if Lifeway came out with literature, which had all Trad advisors….had quotes from Trad types 10 to 1 over Calvinists”
I kind of assume that the rest of Lifeway’s literature is pretty much what you just described. I don’t know that for sure however.
Bill, I’m not sure that there is much Calvinistic input for most of the curriculum and it probably does resemble the caricature that has been painted.
Bill Mac and Lt. Dan,
You both know that if a curriculum with all advisors being Trad types….like Patterson, Yarnell, Caner, Hankins, Tim Rogers, Lumpkins, etc.; and the majority of the quotes being used in the literature where from Trad types; and all the videos and podcasts being recommended were from Worley, Rick Patrick, and Adam Harwood; and Lifeway was pushing this new literature…..
You know that there’d be hollering and screaming going on amongst the Calvinist crowd. C’mon, fellas. Let’s not play games, here.
David
I disagree completely David. What you have described has been the norm for years from Lifeway. This ONE curriculum option doesn’t follow that pattern with its contributors, so everyone’s freaking out. Lifeway has been producing material written by traditional baptists for its entire existence.
David: First off, I’m not sure all those people you mentioned are among the people claiming the traditionalist label. Second, what I’m asking is that aren’t the other Lifeway curriculum lines pretty much what you guys call “traditionalist”? That’s an honest question because although I assume it is true, I don’t know that it is true. I would gladly use a curriculum by any of those guys as long as the content was solid.
Darryl,
The material from Lifeway has been shallow…Dr. Caner’s words…for years and years. The SS material hasnt been the best for years and years.
How nice of you to say that it’s the Traditionalist types, who’ve been putting that shallow, no good, SS material out for years.
Wow, Darryl….could you be much more abrasive and rude, crude, and in your face than you just were, Bro?
I agree that the SS material of the past has not been the best. Although, the past couple of years or longer, it has improved greatly. My people at Church have been talking about the improvement. Also, I teach a DT class, and the material we’ve had has been great.
David
Well David, you’re right that those were not my words, but Dr. Caner’s. I’m simply telling you the truth that I believe that traditionalists have been the primary ones involved in the creation of that literature.
Now, I’m not going to say that their soteriology is the cause of the shallow literature. I don’t think that’s the cause. I think much of the cause has been to attempt to make the literature exciting, engaging, modern, and more relevant. For a while there it seemed that Lifeway was more concerned about what seemed cool and fun than they were with what was true and biblical. I’m not laying that at the feet of the trads who created the recent statement, though.
Actually, the recent trads are at least “thinking” about what they believe. I praise the Lord for that. I think we should all be thankful for that. If nothing else, this “threat of calvinism” has caused people to analyze what they believe and why they believe it. This is good because our people were following the same pattern. Many are still there, but I see a change in the leadership.
But my fear with some of this anger and reaction against sovereign grace as that much of the “thinking” will not be about the Gospel but about the ways in which we disagree with “calvinism.” And that’s sad, in my opinion. I’ll tell you the same thing that I’ve been saying from day one of posting here. I am reformed in my beliefs but I don’t teach TULIP. In 7 years of believing this, I’ve not once taught the people tulip. I do not try to convert people to calvinism. I preach the word. Whatever the text says is what I teach and preach.
So please, don’t put words into my mouth David. That’s inductive reasoning you engaged in here.
Guys, Lifeway stores sell Joel Osteen. When we went this route with Lifeway, what did we expect? I have thought their materials were shallow for many years. The answer is not to go with the “depth” of Calvinism which is circular philosophy of Plato/Augustine and black hole.
Bill,
If LifeWay came out with a new curriculum that had Jerry Vines, Steve Gaines, Eric Hankins, Paige Patterson, Chuck Kelley, David Allen, Malcolm Yarnell, Phil Hoskins, Bailey Smith, Harold Hunter, Braxton Hunter, Bob Hadley and Peter Lumpkins serving as advisors and Emir Caner, and Brad Reynolds as editors. I believe the New Calvinists would be very suspicious. We would hear rumors of semi-Pelagian thoughts creeping into the SBC and others stuff like that. However, I believe, as I believe this about us Trads, that would not have been something that gained any traction among the NC movement. However, I believe if the curriculum were named The Right Gospel we would have a mutiny on our hands. I would not stand for the naming of this project as if there has never been any Gospel that came out of the SBC. Also, for the leaders of Lifeway to state that this is not about the reformed movement is, well shall we say, disingenuous.
You see, the issue of Calvinism really isn’t the issue. The issue is that we are told it isn’t reformed and it is called “The Gospel Project” like Calvinism is the Gospel. Is that what you want to be said about any theological system? It, at best, is a presentation of the scriptures relating to the Gospel, but Calvinism is not the Gospel. That is the same as going out and giving soup at the soup kitchen then coming back to your church and telling them you presented the gospel to 100 people today simply because you served 100 bowls of soup.
I don’t believe the material actually pushes Calvinism. If it does, can you please show me a reference?
I dont really believe that you’re Lt. Dan. Can you please prove it by telling me how it felt to fall off the shrimp boat?
David
Tim: Isn’t being disingenuous the same as lying?
“The issue is that we are told it isn’t reformed and it is called “The Gospel Project” like Calvinism is the Gospel.”
Yep. That IS the issue. We were even told they did not know the writers/advisors, etc were Calvinists. Imagine that. I just do not think they have been upfront and it has become a trust issue. It is as if they tried to bring it out under the Calvin radar. I think it backfired but I still think they will sell a lot of it. Lots of people follow guys like Piper, Chandler, Platt and others.
It will sell because it is excellent material. I would venture to say that less than half of the people here who are criticizing this have even looked at it, which is sad. Have you read any of it Lydia?
“It will sell because it is excellent material. I would venture to say that less than half of the people here who are criticizing this have even looked at it, which is sad. Have you read any of it Lydia?”
Just the sample stuff. But what confuses me is the lack of common sense on the subject. Most would expect a liberal to write from a liberal perspective, right? But some conservatives might be a bit alarmed if a liberal wrote for their favorite conservative publication but was touted as not being liberal at all when asked or they were not sure. Why not?
I think it boils down to common sense. Why would we expect Calvinists not to create a Calvinistic leaning curriculum?
The other aspect is that Lifeway was not totally upfront when originally asked about this. If they did not really know the advisors/creators were Calvinists then what does that say about how they choose folks? Based on what criteria? Popularity? Referrals from board members? How does that work? So were they being dishonest or did they really not know? Either way does not bode well for them.
Lydia, the conversation I saw had some of that parsing of words. It wasn’t “they didn’t know” (I think) but more of “I didn’t ask” because all they cared about was the BFM which is just code for “yes they’re Calvinists let’s stop talking now.” I don’t think for a moment anyone at Lifeway was suprised that the contributors were all 4 and 5 pointers (and again the deception with 4 pointers aren’t really Calvinist so it’s so totally balanced!) Claiming it just sorta of accidently happened just doesn’t pass the smell test and I think goes to an issue of trust.
Thank you. This post is very helpful. I don’t know if you could call me “Reformed”, but I definitely lean toward a Reformed way of thinking, but this DOES look imbalanced to me as well. The SBC is not a Reformed Church! This is the kind of proof I was looking for. I think you’ve established your case. It is also encouraging that there is a link where anyone can look at a couple of the lessons and judge for themselves. Thank you for this very helpful article.
Sam
Here’s what I would love to see here my friends. If you are going to make the case that this material is intending to convert people to calvinism, please show me the content that teaches these principles. I don’t want to know the theological leanings of those quoted. I want to know what the content says. That’s all. Can someone help me with this?
I would just like to say one final thing before I leave you good people alone…
It’s a shame my friends that so many are willing to dismiss this curriculum based on the theological leanings of its contributors. (ignoring the fact that it’s editors are not calvinists) The sad part to me is- as I hold the Gospel Project curriculum in my hand, the thing that excites me most about it is not who is quoted but the fact that it is so well done, and even more that the Gospel is shared in EVERY lesson. What a blessing! What a gracious and good thing this is. I am thanking God right now for this material because I know that the students in our church, including three of my own children, are going to hear and be reminded of the Gospel every time we meet. Praise the Lord!
Amen
“so many are willing to dismiss this curriculum based on the theological leanings of its contributors.”
More “be wary” or deciding that it’s more trouble than it’s worth to have to filter it constantly. TGP can still become something worthwhile, and that is my hope.
Donald,
Amen, again.
David
I’ve been studying the lessons closely Donald. There is nothing to “filter.” I think I’m going to do an actual critique of the material on my blog- one that deals with the actual content. By the way, none of infamous evil quotes of various calvinists are even found in the student guides- not one. The quotes are only found in the leader guides. No sermons are referenced in the student guides. No books are referenced in the student guides. The more I look it over, the more I realize that this whole thing is being overblown. But hey, I don’t expect anyone here to believe me. I can’t be unbiased because I believe in the doctrines of grace.
Is what you’re saying true for the Adult literature also?
Honestly I’m not sure Mary. I have the student curriculum but not the adult curriculum. I will check the online free samples… The quotes ARE included in the adult learner guides.
These free samples are available to anyone now, by the way. There is a link to the free sample lessons in Ed Stetzer’s latest article, which I won’t link here. But if you go over to sbc voices, it is the first link on their ticker. They are .pdf files.
Darryl, thanks I looked at the online stuff a while back. I’m glad to hear that the quotes/resources are not listed in the student books. I do have a problem that they seem to be listed in the adult programs. Many adults are no more discerning than students (a lot of students may be ahead, not to brag, ok I’ll brag my three are) but I think that’s sorta of the whole point. When I’m looking at curriculum for my homeschool, I look at it and I like to know the background of the writers and their purpose and intent. With teenagers I’m not censoring as much as I once was because I want my kids to think and be exposed to different ideas, but I know the things I want to highlight and say “what about that? is that right” I think churches should be allowed the same thing in how they distribute their materials – “now you’ll notice in the going deeper section that one of the resources is – this person has some good things to say, but here’s where they’re going to differ from our church.” So if overwhelmingly the quotes and resources are Calvnists than they should be labeld so teachers/churches can say read this but understand this person is coming from a different perspective on some things.
Also there’s the issue that Calvinist and Trads don’t have the same definitions for words like sovereignty – even the word Gospel can have different meanings – Founders thinks we’ve lost the Gospel since we reject DOG. I understand not all Calvinists think like this, but I want to know what the person writing means when they are talking about different ideas. Mitt Romney can say he believes Jesus is the Son of God and unfortunately there are too many people who think “wow he’s pretty orthodox.” When Mitt Romney says jesus he’s not talking about JESUS.
Mary I wonder if you realize that you just compared the difference between reformed brothers and trads with the difference between Christians and Mormons? It seems you don’t think we even believe the same Gospel or worship the same Jesus. Mormonism is a cult. Is Calvinism the same? Those are the kinds of things I was mentioning above about having my views misrepresented. I would never compare the trad view with Mormonism.
No Darryl that’s not what I did at all. You just happen to take offense to anything Traditionalists say and refuse to offer grace to anyone who disagrees with you. You’re just looking for things to attack and paint Trads as bad.
I would hope that I would ask the same proof, and have, for those reeling accusations about non-Cavlvinists and in fact have asked. I do read all proofs and links.
Debbie,
I want proof that you’re Debbie.
David
So if Matt Chandler says “We need to preach the Gospel to all nations” that is somehow different than if Paige Patterson says “We need to preach the Gospel to all nations.” The quote itself doesn’t matter evidently, but the person quoted.
great point
Thank you Dr. Caner for an excellent job. I appreciate your diligence and all are valid points.
I feel like beating my head against the wall after reading this thread. I do not know of a conspiracy that Lifeway has decided to participate in. I am convinced in my heart that Lifeway produced a material that they knew would sell to the reform in the convnetion. I think it has more to do with sales than anything else. Again that is my opinion. They certainly were scared of the uproar that was started when in the promotional material we see quotes like we want to make sure the Gospel is being accurately shared. The spinning took off, “this has no reform leanings at all. Its is fair, balanced, etc…” Dr. Rainer even said such.
What is not my opinion is that the advisory board and most in the voices are reform and many are not SBC. I am told to look at the two lessons and review them and tell where the theology is Calvinist. This is what is so frustrating. If you read Vince Lombardi on football eventually he will share about the counter trey because it was his forte. If you read Bill Dance eventually you will come across the university of Tennessee because that is his college and he loves it. If you come Marx you can be assured that eventually you will be introduced to socialism. Only a person of very low intelligence will pick two lessons written in tgp and say show me Calvinism. There is none in the lessons. Its not reform. Maybe there is none in these lessons. I will not strain my eyes to find it. To all my dear brothers and sisters look at the list of theologians that Dr. Caner mentions. Just keep reading….its who they are and what they believe. It has to come out. SBC should simply state what the material is and let churches that want to use it.
I think a big part of the plan is to sell it to the reformed outside the SBC.
Okay, say TGP really does have a reformed slant. Southern Baptist surveys have shown that 1/3 of SBC-affiliated churches identify as Calvinist, 1/3 as Arminian, and 1/3 as neither, yet LifeWay has how many other SS curriculum tracks? Two major ones (“Bible Studies for Life” and “Explore the Bible”) and a half-dozen other smaller ones. Besides, no SBC-affiliated church HAS to use any particular curriculum — or any LifeWay curriculum at all. This is a bogus issue. If you don’t like TGP, don’t use it. If no one uses it, LifeWay will discontinue it. It’s only “indoctrination” if one is forced to use the materially uncritically. That’s not happening.
Where could we see those surveys? In over 35 years of SBC ministry/SBC-affiliated university/SBC seminary, and 50 years in SBC church attendance/membership/VBS/church camps, etc., I’ve met very few SBC people who identified as Calvinists, and none who identified as Arminians. If surveys (plural, as used in the posting) do indicate 1/3 for each, I would be very interested in reading the questions used in the surveys!
Caner purports to know the theological belief system of the VAST majority of Southern Baptists, but does little to explain the difference in TGP and the VAST majority view. He likes to “name names” to compare. The Bible and its overwhelming view of redemptive history seems to be the focus of the samples I have read. Caner’s concern is about political power within the SBC and its affiliate agencies , rather than the discipleship of believers. Lifeway sells materials that run the gamut. Stop worrying so much about the Reformed view and read your Bible . Maybe you will realize you are really a amillennialist or a Calvinist and not a VAST majority guy.
I don’t know if anyone cares here, but I’ll just throw this out. None of the quotes of any of the calvinists appear in the student books. They only appear in the teacher guides. I’ve just been taking a closer look at the student version, which I’m preparing to teach this fall with my students, and I noticed this. There are also not any references to sermons of any pastors, teachers, or theologians in the student books. It won’t matter for anyone here, but I thought I’d try.
One of the reasons we had to leave our last church was because they were teaching our children the typical fare from Lifeway, and then the kids kept asking questions pertaining to why the lessons din’t line up with their catechism at home. The irony is that this was coming from a four year old, who could see plainly that the quarterly study material our church was using from Lifeway was theologically shallow, not merely traditional in nature.
Though our new church won’t be using it, the Gospel Project sound like a pretty hearty meal for the typical Southern Baptist, and hopefully one that won’t be utterly disregarded because of its supposed Calvinistic bent. Maybe if some folks took the time to study that which they think they disagree with, they would see that the purpose of the study is better than which they thought…
That would be part of the Founders thus the need to “reform” all of us “recovering the Gospel” and taking us back to the “biblical theology” of our Founders.
Well Dan maybe now it’s time to start giving more information such as “curriculum produced by Trads so you know it’s full of heretical, man centered, theolgy.”
Here’s a blurb from Founders for ya:
As Tom Nettles and Timothy George convincingly demonstrate elsewhere in this journal, these doctrines comprised the common understanding of the gospel among Southern Baptists during their first seventy-five years of existence. They are clearly stated and defended in the writings of former convention leaders such as Boyce, Dagg, Broadus, W.B. Johnson, R.B.C. Howell, Basil Manly, Sr., Basil Manly, Jr., Patrick H. Mell, Richard Fuller, and Richard Furman, to name just a few.
Call it what you will–Calvinism, reformed theology, the doctrines of grace–these truths are nothing less than historic Southern Baptist orthodoxy. This is the theology which gave rise to the formation and early development of the great missionary and evangelistic enterprise which we know as the Southern Baptist Convention. This is what our forefathers believed to be the true teaching of Scripture. These are the doctrines on which they built their churches and which undergirded their ministries. And if these doctrines were true then, they are still true today, because the Bible has not changed, God has not changed, and truth does not change.
If we hope to see a renewal in our churches (how we live), then we must be willing to seek a renewal in our theology (what we believe). Our doctrinal heritage can be very helpful as it challenges our thinking and points us forward into a renewed understanding of God’s Holy Word.
It is a wonderful providence that the sesquicentennial anniversary of our convention comes at a time when there is a growing recognition of our deep need for revival and reformation. We should take this opportunity to remember the rock from whence we are hewn and listen to those who have gone before us, on whose shoulders we stand-those former faithful servants who, though being dead, yet speak.
Stand in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, where the good way is, and walk in it; then you will find rest for your souls
just kidding!
I appreciate Dr. Caner’s review. I think he points out some valid areas for thoughtful discussion.
Mary–I hear you and do believe you and am sorry for your hurt over your church split. I have been through a church split myself and I know the gut wrenching pain. Sometimes still, though eight years removed from the split, I experience that pain afresh.
I’m not sure how you took anything I wrote as being dismissive of your experience. I apologize for anything I wrote that caused you to feel dismissed or as if I didn’t believe you.
My experience as one in the pews has not been as yours, so I have not experienced this subversive thread of Calvinism and was merely asking for some links to give me insight.
Which I understood you to take as me calling you a liar. That was not my intent and not what I wrote. But clearly I feel for you in your obvious pain.
As I said yesterday, I don’t frequent these blogs but have an interest in TGP because others of my extended family are using it in their churches. I downloaded it n my iPad and have read through the fall lessons with my Bible open.
I have to say I think it is wonderful and sort of wish my church would be using it as much as I am benefitting from our home grown study on Romans.
I have not found it to be an indoctrination of any particular brand of theology. I’ve found it to be filled with the Bible.
Though I lean reformed and have learned much from the books and sermons of John Piper, Alistait Begg, MacArthur, Sproul, Chandler, etc. I would not call myself a Calvinist.
I also have learned much from Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, Chuck Kelley and others in the SBC and outside the SBC but not reformed.
Just as an aside, my parents were married by Adrian Rogers when he was pastor of FBC Merritt Island. Our families remained friends through the years and enjoyed great fellowship together.
I don’t read or listen to any of these men looking for the bent of their particular systematic theology. I try to do as God instructs which is to read the Scriptures for myself and by the guidance of the Spirit be led in the Truth once for all handed down by the saints. My senior pastor tells us every week he preaches to open our Bibles and be good Bereans.
Although I appreciate Dr Caner’s article, I’m still looking for the proof of the Calvinistic indoctrination in TGP. I’ve read through all the fall lessons and I just don’t see it. I know I’m not as learned as most on these comment threads, which is why I asked for some definite cites in TGP curriculum.
One thing I may be more learned in is music and the hymns. My grandfather loved the hymns and we would sing them whenever we visited my grandparents home. My mother was a trained opera singer and sing with the MET and Chicago lyric. So music has always been huge in our family.
As such I do know that a large portion of hymns we have sung in Baptist churches are not cooked and written by so called SBC Traditionalists. Still we sing them because of the lyrics, not the person who wrote the lyrics. Huge numbers of the hymns in SBC hymnals over the years came from those of a reformed theology. Some from Methodists. Some from Anglicans and Catholics, etc.
The hymn text that caused questions for Dr Caner is found in our SBC hymnals, and it is also in the Celebration Hymnal. As well, there are a few others from the same hymn writer as well.
Now, if the suggestion is that we cannot sing songs, which surely do teach theology to our people, which were penned by those outside the SBC camp, then we would have to throw out much of the best and beloved hymnody of the SBC tradition.
That would be such a huge loss for the Kingdom if we were to start down that trail.
Yet, it seems like what I’m hearing in a lot of comments is that we should start down that trail with others. Now I’m not up to speed on the Founders or other things I’ve read here. But if we are not saying these men are teaching heresy, why are we wanting to examine and interrogate them as if they were?
I really hope that the underlying intent is not to drive reformed folks out of the SBC. That would be a huge loss to the Kingdom as well.
Just my two cents from the pews….
Ivory, no the intent is not to kick out all the Calvinists. This is a Calvinist red herring to keep from discussing the issues which is that where Calvinists have been given positions of authority they have actively excluded Traditionalists. This needs to stop. The SBC institutions need to be serving the entire SBC not just this group or that one.
Founders is a movement that has actively worked at “reforming” the SBC for over thirty years now. Someone like me has “lost the Gospel” or perhaps I’ve never really had it since I reject Calvinism. People like my husbands family who goes back in the SBC four generations “lost the Gospel” and if you read on their site you’ll find they think these dear saints who labored through blood, sweat, tears, and money to plant churches that are still active to this day were somehow responsible for the liberalism that led to the need for the Conservative Resurgence – the rejection of DOG leads to liberalism.
I don’t think anyone is saying churches shouldn’t sing certain hymns. Hymns are didactic – they have much to teach us. I’m sorry so many reject the hymns. We’re losing a large part of our heritage. I can’t tell you how distressing it is to see the YRR on these blogs mocking little blue haired old ladies singing Just As I Am. The point the author was making about the hymn is that it is a hymn with a Calvinist perspective. Some hymns are very reformed and some not. This is true going way back to the old Broadman Hymnals.
The concern I think is valid about the Gospel Project is why are there so many reformed references. Why are the resources and quotes to overwhelmingly reformed people? How is it not sliding Calvinism in to suggest one go to a resource that teaches Calvinism. Everybody is focusing on what the lessons are teaching – what about those quotes and those resourcs listed? Are they leading people to Calvinism?
Mary, the answer to all your questions are probably no. But you could get a job working for CSI.
And what SBC Reformed leaders are purposely oppressing Trads?
Everything you’re saying sounds like The Davinci Code. I’m so confused! I need a non-alcoholic beer!
Thanks for your response. I can’t speak for everyone, but as I read the lessons and quotes, I didn’t find anything subversive or screaming reformed theology. I found lots of Bible.
Maybe in some churches there would be a problem with it. I think after reading through it all however that the two,churches where my extended family will be using TGP they have wonderful shepherd pastors who will care for those in the flock and guard their hearts and minds in Christ Jesus.
I think if we ever use it in my church most of the people in my Bible fellowship group will do their homework and will not be naive or carried away with any false doctrines.
I love the hymns as well. Some are rich in theology and others not so much. Our church has a very good music director who is first a theologian so he is able to weed out the good from the bad. We sing from all varieties of music, not focused on style, but focused on biblical truth. I always tell my kids that they need the older hymn tradition and we, their parents, need the newer songs as long as they are biblically solid.
I’m thankful to be in a church where because of pastoral wisdom and leadership we have not experienced the ‘worship wars’ many in other churches have experienced. As he said one time from the pulpit, he is so glad our God didn’t stop creating and inspiring new music for His glory! I agree.
I don’t find the hymn Dr Caner cited as teaching reformed theology–here are the lyrics.
This is one reason I think it is important to read the lessons through thoroughly before indicting the curriculum as being subversive or indoctrinating. I just don’t think from the material overall that the case has been made.
Again, I haven’t been through the battles some have, but could it be this curriculum is getting a short shrift because some reformed folks have wrongly hurt others, and not because of the content in this curriculum?
I don’t know the answer.
Here are the lyrics. And the author was not reformed but Methodist.
Break Thou the bread of life, dear Lord, to me,
As Thou didst break the loaves beside the sea;
Beyond the sacred page I seek Thee, Lord;
My spirit pants for Thee, O living Word!
Bless Thou the truth, dear Lord, to me, to me,
As Thou didst bless the bread by Galilee;
Then shall all bondage cease, all fetters fall;
And I shall find my peace, my all in all.
Thou art the bread of life, O Lord, to me,
Thy holy Word the truth that saveth me;
Give me to eat and live with Thee above;
Teach me to love Thy truth, for Thou art love.
O send Thy Spirit, Lord, now unto me,
That He may touch my eyes, and make me see:
Show me the truth concealed within Thy Word,
And in Thy Book revealed I see the Lord.
Ivory, I think Dr. Caner made a mistake on the hymn – I’m giving him some grace and assuming he looked and was only able to find a reference to it in the Presbyertrian Psaltry as he said and so from there he made the conclusion it was reformed. He would have to speak as to what his actual thought process was there. I don’t think he is at all saying that we shouldn’t sing this hymn or that hymn because of the bent toward one side or another.
I think his point is that there is a lack of balance in the material in regards to quotes, resources etc. Hopefully, that will be corrected in future printings. I think it would helpful as well to simply point out this resource is a reformed resource or this one is a Trad. The more information the better. And than churches are able to have discussions about the different streams of thought. Right now a lot of churches may be aware there are different streams of theology in the SBC but they’re not aware that some of those ideas are being mentioned and pushed as resources through Lifeway curriculum. People keep saying they don’t see a reformed bent. If the resources that people are being directed to search are Calvinists how can that not be a reformed bent? Just because it’s not overt within the body of the lessons isn’t it covertly coming through in directing people to read Calvinists resources?
But I’m very happy to hear Ivory that your church is on the ball and having good shepharding in your Bible Studies. Some churches could use a little more help in that regards and I think that’s the main point about all this – a lot of churches just trust Lifeway implicitly and now they need to be pushed to understand that the SBC is changing and they need information to figure out how they agree or disagree with this or that.
I also hope for involved, wise pastors at other churches. The reason our pastors went to writing our own SS curriculum is because the stuff they were reading coming out of Lifeway was not good and solid food. Their opinion, of course. My Bible study teacher never used it anyway as our group prefers going verse by verse through a book of the Bible and we were doing that for years before our pastors started writing the curriculum. I know it is a lot of extra work for them but it has been nice as a church to all be studying the same thing at the same time across all ages. Has been good also to give some of our folks like singles or those who don’t like to be separated from their children to have a multi generational class.
Anyway, it will be interesting to read the next in TGP series when it comes out.
As I have read some of the comments, its seems as though many who have found issues with what Dr. Caner has written have done so because the TULIP (so to speak) is not overtly evident in the literature of the Gospel Project and thus deny his claims of a Reformed bent. If I may I would offer two observations:
1) Even if a bent exists I would not expect it to be evident – in the affirmations and denials of T4G you do not find the Reformed bent until article VIII and then the wording is only clear to those aware of the issues. There is no question that T4G is reformed. But in their denials and affirmations you do not find such overt wording as “Jesus died only for the elect” or “man cannot resist God’s grace” – Thus, if one has to be aware of theological buzzwords and search for Calvinists soteriology in the wording of T4G (clearly and without doubt Reformed) then it seems that Lifeway material (which is to be marketed to the whole convention and beyond), even if it was written from a Reformed bent, would be far far more subtle.
2. I would be very VERY disappointed in an author if his soteriological views were not somewhat represented in discipleship material for which he was consulted, wrote or edited (especially, if such material deals with the gospel and salvation). One look at the consultants and editorial team speaks of major representation from a Calvinistic soteriology.
I make these two points to say I am not really sure what the issue is. Yes, I get it from Lifeway’s perspective. They need to market to a large audience. Perhaps they contracted those they felt were the best to write the material for them, and the majority of those individuals just happened to be Reformed (four or five point). Further, Lifeway sees no need to advertise that fact, for fear the material which they feel is solid, may not be well-received from those who are not Reformed (not to mention it might cause some to think Lifeway itself might lean that direction).
But honestly, what is the problem with someone pointing out that there seems to be an over-representation of Reformed thought in this material? Sure, it speaks of perhaps a bigger issue but it is what it is. Thus, I understand why Lifeway would not put a sticker claiming “Reformed” on the material (marketing strategy) but I don’t understand the reaction against individuals pointing out it actually may have such a bent. I would hope every true Reformed individual would say “Great. Finally, Lifeway gets soteriology right!” and the non-reformed would rightly say “Hello, what about us?”
Yes, Lifeway may wisely avoid speaking of such reality, but why should any of us who do not work for Lifeway want to either: 1) encourage subtlety concerning soteriological views (something I honestly find nauseating, as our understanding of salvation should be something we are willing to shout from the mountaintops); or 2) imply those who wrote material on the “Gospel” did so without any attention to their soteriological views (this type of implication seems to be very unfair to the authors and consultants).
Let’s just be upfront and honest about our soteriology and state that such soteriology RIGHTLY affects any discipleship material in which we are involved. I am general atonement and I do not couch it or hide it or try to slip it in covertly. I think my view reflects Scripture and thus it influences all “gospel” topics I address. As it should!
Finally, I confess I write this comment with the best of intentions but the least of knowledge about Lifeway’s curriculum (as I have not read anything other than what others have said about it). Nevertheless, I hope and pray the project does far more for the Kingdom than Lifeway could have imagined and that many come to a saving knowledge of Christ and others grow in their faith.
Moreover, perhaps the conversations since the convention and even Dr. Caner’s post will be an encouragement for Lifeway, in the future, to have a curriculum advisory board that looks more like the BFM2000 committee if they desire to represent all Southern Baptists.
Debbie, it’s one thing to require proof before you believe something for yourself. It’s quite another to start calling people liars and sinners because you don’t have the proof you require. Whether you ever get “proof” is irrelevant to whether something is true – it may mean you never become convinced but it doesn’t give you the proof that someone is lying either. There are a lot of true things happening that you don’t know about and you’ll never have proof for and it doesn’t make them less true. You have no “proof” either way so for a Christian to just decide without any “proof” and start calling people liars is a serious problem. Especially when anyone is sharing stories of having been spiritually abused.
“Lydia: I didn’t believe it at first. I checked out every piece of evidence they laid out. I checked it and rechecked it. I believed them. I believed the evidence. I had dinner with Dee and Deb when they were in Enid and we talked for quite awhile. So yes, I have always required evidence. ”
Debbie, I must have misunderstood. So, you have met every single person Dee and Deb have written about and heard first hand accounts? I find that impossible to believe. Or, did you believe their “third” person accounts because you met Dee and Deb? (I am not suggesting you shouldn’t)
Mary gave you a FIRST person account of her experience and you called her a gossip right out of the gate and said she had to prove it. There is no way Dee and Deb could prove the many third person accounts they have written about, to you. Do you not see the unfairness in your calling her a gossip with her FIRST person account? Some of whom Dee and Deb have written about as spiritually abusive are people you have defended on these threads. There is some cognative dissonance going on.
“When I was blogging I provided evidence of anything I wrote”
Some of your “evidence” was what a young Muslim man in London, you had never met, told you what to believe about Islam and you insisted it was true…when I happened to know it wasn’t. Personally, I found that part incredulous and naive.
This excerpt from a Gospel Coalition interview with Randy Alcorn may help clarify some people’s concerns.
In that regard, I am fascinated by the number of non-Calvinists who tell me they read my book Heaven cover to cover and found the Scripture and theology fascinating. Yet I quote repeatedly from Piper, Venema, Bavinck, Hoekema, Grudem, Packer, Edwards, Ryle, Spurgeon, etc. Yes, I throw in some good quotes from John Wesley and a few other Arminians, but the deck is stacked highly toward the people whose theology I most enjoy, who are Calvinists. Whenever I can get people who have little theological background to be exposed to good theology, it’s a special joy. If they do nothing but start reading Piper, Carson, Grudem, Bridges, and Spurgeon because they loved those quotes I cited, that would be good enough for me!