I’ve been seeing a lot of criticism of Lifeway’s new curriculum, The Gospel Project, and it all revolves around Calvinism. Of course, I have yet to read a critical article from someone who actually claims to have read any of the materials that are posted online or cited them to prove their accusations. Many claims are made about the curriculum, it’s authors and editors, and Calvinists in general. I’ve identified a few of the more prominent ones:
1. Calvinists are incapable of writing with a broad appeal
Judged solely from the negative comments, I’d guess that The Gospel Project is a modern-day Calvinist catechism. Detractors claim that this curriculum doesn’t represent the views of the majority of Southern Baptists.
2. Calvinists are subtly inserting their doctrine in the curriculum
This point is diametrically opposed to the first one. First they say that the material is reeking of Calvinism, then they say it is so subtle that the average person won’t notice it. Since sample materials from The Gospel Project have been posted online for a while, they must be so subtle that even the detractors haven’t been able to find them, since I’ve yet to see any citations of the curriculum specifically linked to Calvinist doctrine.
3. The people writing this are all Calvinists
I’ll admit that there’s quite a few Calvinists associated with The Gospel Project, though the editors have insisted that this isn’t about Calvinism and there were non-Calvinists writing for it as well. But so what if there’s a Calvinist influence on the curriculum? I’ve learned and benefited much from preachers like Adrian Rogers, and I even taught a small group class following his book What Every Christian Ought to Know. I subscribe to all five points of Calvinism, but I’m not threatened by non-Calvinists, and I’m willing to introduce new believers to points of view that differ from my own. Rogers certainly wasn’t tooting any kind of anti-Calvinist horn when he wrote the book, but he still presents election and foreknowledge in a way that is clearly counter to what Calvinists believe.
People who write music, curricula, books, etc. will necessarily show some bias towards the views and beliefs they hold. That doesn’t mean Calvinists (or non-Calvinists for that matter) are incapable of writing with a broad appeal. If an author says, “Trust in our sovereign God,” will my opinion of his book change if I know he’s writing from an Arminian perspective? From a Calvinistic perspective? Just because there are a good deal of Calvinists working on The Gospel Project doesn’t mean Calvinists are trying to sneak their doctrine into everything they write with the hopes of converting readers to Calvinism. Its the detractors who are focusing on Calvinism, not the authors.
Your Challenge
Read some of the sample materials for yourself. It’s out there, accessible to anyone who’s interested. I ask that everyone read a little of it, and if you see Calvinist propaganda, point it out in the comments below. I’m serious. I don’t want to play games with words and imaginary offenses. If you see something in there that is clearly teaching Calvinism, point it out.
Conversely, if you read anything you like, copy and paste it in the comments section. Here’s something I liked (and it could easily have come from the pen of a Calvinist or an Arminian):
“The gospel is the story of a God who issues a call to helpless sinners. In our blindness and deafness, we are imprisoned by our own sinfulness. We cannot see the goodness of God until He gives us new eyes. We cannot hear the voice of God until He opens our ears. Like Helen Keller, we struggle to make sense of the world around us—why we are here and where we are going.”
The Gospel Project, Adult Leader Pilot, Volume 1, Number 1 Fall 2012, pg.15
Andrew,
Great post. So obviously Calvinistic and yet so subtle, how deceptive. 🙂 I am interested to see the good and the bad presented here.
My church is going TGP church-wide in the fall and I can’t wait!
Mine as well.
We are especially pumped for our kids ministry.
Actually… I wrote a scathing review and updated it because I felt it was too washed out and liberal. I previewed it thoroughly, and felt it missed the mark in one area, but did well in others. Here are the links if you want to see for yourself. Surprisingly enough, I cannot see where the “Calvinist Lean” is at all… Are these people sure they even looked at the same one Lifeway had us look at???
http://stiffnecked.com/2012/04/12/the-gospel-project/
http://stiffnecked.com/2012/04/12/gospel-project-update/
I taught the 4 Free Lessons in my Adult Sunday School Class on consecutive Sundays and was less than enthused about the materials for Adults.
What I have seen for Children is impressive.
At this time we will probably transition to TGP for All age groups except adults in the Fall.
We will re-evaluate for Adults as the materials evolve.
And No – in the 4 Free Lessons there was no Calvinistic Agenda!
What were some of the things that made you less than enthused about the Adult material? I’ve seen the children’s stuff and love it. I have yet to really dig into the Adult or youth side yet. If you don’t want this to be a public discussion just shoot me an email. MIKE at FBJASPER dot ORG
What?! LifeWay is producing “Adult Material”? Those dastardly Calvinists!
Not THAT kind of adult material!
I love this quote from Herschel Hobbs on page 41 of the Leader Guide:
“The Old Testament sounds the messianic hope. The Gospels record Christ’s incarnation; Acts relates His continuing work through the Holy Spirit; the Epistles interpret His person and work; Revelation proclaims His final triumph and glory.”
Sums up the Christ-focused approach of this curriculum!
I really like that quote too. There should be a way to “like” these comments through Facebook or “+1” them through Google+.
Andrew: I would +1 your comment simply for advocating the use of G+.
“+1”
I like that quote as well. Nothing Calvinist or Arminian about it. Strictly Gospel.
Personally, I am less concerned about Calvinist indoctrination than I am about the limited scope of a Sunday School curriculum whose philosophy would seem to inadvertently reduce the entirety of God’s Word to the gospel meta-narrative. In other words, I’m not sure you can fit all of the wisdom literature, the Old Testament stories, certain prophecies, the law, and so on, inside of this project’s framework. Admittedly, some of this depends upon your Sunday School philosophy. In my case, I want Sunday School to be a more or less comprehensive survey of the entire Bible, perhaps sacrificing depth of insight… Read more »
Lifeway may end up creating a shorter book (or books) to complement the study as well. I saw recently that they came out with a short, young adult study called Creation Restored: The Gospel According to Genesis. My wife may end up going through it this summer with some of the high school girls from church.
http://www.lifeway.com/n/Product-Family/Creation-Restored:-The-Gospel-According-to-Genesis?intcmp=iTeam1-LWMain-Hero5-CreationRestored-20120409
Andrew,
Thanks. I’ll take a look at it.
Rick
Andrew,
Allow me to respectfully ask you this question: If someone gave the responsibility to the faculty of Southern Baptist Seminary to write articles on the BFM 2000 … interrupting each article of the document to all Southern Baptists … would it be free from more Calvinistic leanings?
Ron,
I’m not Andrew, but my answer is I don’t know. But it sparks another question in my mind: ” If someone gave the responsibility to the faculty of NOBTS to write articles on the BFM 2000 … interpreting each article of the document to all Southern Baptists … would it be free from more non-Calvinistic leanings?
Ron,
I’m not quite sure how to respond to your question. I believe you’re trying to get to the issue of bias in writing. I guess I can only respond with a quote from my post:
“People who write music, curricula, books, etc. will necessarily show some bias towards the views and beliefs they hold. That doesn’t mean Calvinists (or non-Calvinists for that matter) are incapable of writing with a broad appeal.”
My next post will deal with the question of Calvinists writing with a broad appeal and still having some Calvinist bias/inclination in their writing.
Andrew and Christ, Yes, I knew that SBTS faculty had written articles on the BFM 2000 document, in fact, it has been posted on Baptist2Baptist website for many years and at SBTS. Dr. Thomas Nettles had the opportunity to write on: God’s Purpose of Grace – Election, Article 5a. Dr. Nettles has been a mover and shaker in the Founders Movement since its inception. He also wrote the document on the Founders website entitled: Why Your Next Pastor Should Be a Calvinist. Therefore, as a non-Calvinist, I would say that it was a superior strategic maneuver for the entire faculty… Read more »
I meant “Chris” … sorry.
Ron, You failed to interact with anything that actually was written in the commentary on the BF&M. You just assume that because it was written by Calvinists it must be an effort to insert Calvinism into the churches subversively. Thus you question motives and cast aspersions, but haven’t actually demonstrated your conjecture to be correct. That was the whole point of the article upon which we are commenting. Where is the interaction with the text of the documents? Aside from some nitpicking, I have seen nothing substantial. What specifically in Dr. Nettle’s article on God’s Purpose of Grace did you… Read more »
Ron, I think you are making the point that Andrew was trying to make in the original post – the assumption that if a Calvinist writes something, it must be intended to promote Calvinism, as if they are incapable of doing anything else.
You might assume that a non-Calvinist could write a “neutral” article, but seem to assume that a Calvinist could never be neutral.
I think that is unfair.
Ron,
The faculty members of SBTS did produce a document that examines each article of the BF&M 2000. I suggest you go to the website of SBTS, download it, and see for yourself. It is not free from calvinistic “leanings” because the BF&M has never been free from “leanings.” Those who do not affirm eternal security, for example, are often quick to label Southern Baptists as “calvinistic.” That said, I really find it hard to believe that someone could read their explanation of the BF&M and charge them with Calvinist indoctrination or subversion in the document.
Yep, here is the link to the document:
http://www.sbts.edu/documents/bfmexposition.pdf
It is a great read for everyone.
interrupting* = interpreting?
Thanks for catching that 🙂
Ahh, yes. When an English speaker has a person immediately rendering their thoughts into a local language after each of their sentences, we kids that had some overseas experience sometimes, with a mischievous glint in the eye, called those helpers “interrupters”.
“And now you know the rest of the story.” By any chance, are you related to Paul? 😉
No. His name was actually Paul Harvey Aurandt. Shortened to just Harvey for broadcast purposes.
It’s deja vu all over again. I’ll repost a response I made to Dave Miller’s post that was almost the same topic last month. Here it is. Hi all, I’ll answer Dave’s challenge now that I have finally been able to read through both the adult guides and the student learner’s guide of lessons 1-4 of TGP. I would give the project a qualified endorsement so far. I do not believe TGP is a “Calvinist indoctrination tool” by any stretch of the imagination. But I do think the curriculum has a Refomed slant in its approach. I’ll offer a few… Read more »
If I were to read a bunch of “God was not obligated” phrases, I think I would assume that the intent was to create the distinction between love and obligation, so those phrases wouldn’t bother me too much. I’m not keen on “God’s ultimate aim is His own glory” to be honest. It’s not that this sounds too reformed, but rather that it sounds too Piperish. I do think that all things, in the end, will ultimately glorify God, but that may be a discussion for a different time. My biggest beef with some of the detractors has been their… Read more »
I wasn’t barking up that tree, Bill.
Jim G.
I know.
Isn’t the beauty of grace the truth that it is a gift from an unobligated giver?
Seems to me that saying God wasn’t obligated to create the world is just a way of underscoring the love and grace He has shown in revealing Himself to us.
Amen.
@Kyle – I took it from your perspective as well. However, I do recognize that an emphasis on the fact that God wasn’t obligated to create us or reveal Himself will lead to a misrepresentation of God’s character if that’s where the conversation ends, just like an emphasis on God’s wrath towards sinners will lead to a misrepresentation of God’s character if the conversation ends before we talk about God’s love and grace towards His enemies.
“He stands in wrath because we are guilty. He stands in love because He’s that kind of God.” – D.A. Carson
Right on.
Hi Kyle,
Saying that God is “unobligated to save anyone” is of course the truth, but it is not the whole truth. God is also positively motivated out of love to save. You implicitly read God’s motivation into the “unobligated” statement (which is fine), but I think it needs to be explicitly stated to better balance the truth about God in a “gospel-centered” SS curriculum.
John 3:16 (a good short gospel summary) does not say “God was unobligated, but he gave.” Rather, it says “For God so loved, he gave.”
Jim G.
Jim,
If God is obligated to save everyone because of his nature, then why did he not save all the people groups outside of Israel? The Bible gives no indication that he ever extended any salvific love towards them but left them to their willful sin and rebellion.
I didn’t say he was so obligated, Josh. I’m just saying a lack of obligation needs to be balanced with his loving nature.
Jim G.
Truly!
Jim, I don’t mean this as confrontational as it sounds, but these marks of Calvinism seem pretty petty.
You stated that you essentially agree with each one, didn’t you?
Hi Dave,
No offense taken, and I’m only surfacing a concern I have in the direction of the language, that’s all. I have no points of serious disagreement.
Jim G.
Jim: To begin with, I want to thank you for responding thoughtfully and thoroughly to Andrew’s article. Your tone came across as gracious and professional. I would like to offer a push-back to your observations, though, and I hope that my comments come across in the same gracious manner which you have displayed. Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are essentially the same sentiment. They all address quotes appearing on the same page, within a few sentences of each other, and are all contained in the same direct line of thought. As such, I’ll address your concerns jointly. These quotations… Read more »
Thanks for replying, Zack. I would generally agree with your last paragraph. The lack of development standing alone would not be a real issue if we did not have the deeper theological topics on the horizon. The statements common to contemporary Calvinist preachers have been used throughout the Augustinian-Calvinist tradition, so I think that concern is well-founded. But it is only a concern at this point.
Jim G.
You are all predestined to embrace the doctrines of grace anyway. Why kick at the goads?
If the existing writers of our material are Arminian and broad, they would never enter Calvinistic territory. The material would be more liberal than conservative.
Bruce,
Calvinist/Arminian is absolutely, positively no indicator of liberal/conservative.
Jim G.
Jim, I understand what you are saying. My concern with the existing material is that it does not have a broad appeal in the direction of Calvinism. It does leave out things and that waters down the truth. Watered down truth is liberalism to me. The things it waters down isn’t necessarily Calvinistic either. I have been told to just teach it the way I want to and use the material as a guideline. I really wish the material was packed with truth and doctrine and I was allowed to teach it the way I wanted to and use it… Read more »
Two things, First, I think we should be careful not to confuse “non-calvinist” with “Arminian”, not that the Andrew or Bruce were confusing the two when they mentioned them. Second, regards the Edwardian interpretation that “God’s ultimate aim is His own glory”, I have no problem with this. While I agree with Jim’s assessment that the authors of TGP emphasize the notion of “God is not obligated to us”, I believe that this may be necessary in a church-culture that is too often centered on Man. Isn’t the purpose of the redemption of mankind much more about bringing glory to… Read more »
@Anthony – RE:terminology – I know what you mean about the whole “non-Calvinist = Arminian” issue. I see it both ways. A strong emphasis on election or God’s sovereignty can lead to the Calvinist label as well
RE:obligation – See my comment above to Kyle.
Maybe I could ask it this way. What is the difference in a broad appeal from a Calvinist standpoint and a broad appeal from an Arminian standpoint?
practically speaking, I don’t know if there is a difference.
A Calvinist would make the appeal to “repent and believe” the same as an Arminian would.
However, based on my understanding, logic would dictate that an Arminian would be amiss if he were to pray to God for the salvation of someone since prevenient grace (ability to believe) has been given to everyone without exception and it is up to the sinner to “be smart” and believe.
Hi Anthony,
Your second paragraph is a prime example of why Arminianism does not follow to its logical conclusions. Neither does Calvinism. If either did, they would become absurd and quite quickly so at that.
So I think it would be wise not to accuse Arminianism of things based on logical conclusions, because the same type of accusation against Calvinism can be thrown right back.
Jim G.
Jim,
“why pray if God has pre-ordained everything to come to pass?”
There was a farmer who had a dog and Bingo was his name-o. :0)
Jim G.
By “broad appeal,” I’m referring to writing in such a way as to intentionally try to include people from various theological positions in your target readership.
Albert Mohler, for instance, has written a few books about American culture and society that have a broad evangelical appeal, though I’m sure some of what he writes in those books is influenced by his Calvinist beliefs.
The Forgotten God by Francis Chan is an example of a book I’ve recently read that is written with a broad appeal despite the fact he could be identified as a Calvinist, I believe.
Calvinist and Arminian, both, can appear to deserve the other’s label, depending on the text with which they are dealing and their faithfulness in dealing with it. Consider Jonathan Edwards sermon, Pressing Into The Kingdom, Lk.16;16. (Vol.I. Works. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust,1974.p654. He sounds more Arminian than the most Arminian, just like John Wesley used terms about forcing men to come Christ that Spurgeon said he would never use. My ordaining pastor had two sermons that were outstanding for urging and inducing sinners to seek Christ, and I heard one of the leading Independent Sovereign Grace Preachers preach a… Read more »
All of the human race; every man woman and child that has ever been created, born, or will be born in the future, will fall into one of three categories: 1) Those who have heard the Gospel, Believed, and Repented. 2) Those who have heard the Gospel, Did Not Believe, and Did Not Repent. 3) Those who will live their life and never once here the Gospel. Now, here is the great question that all who engage in thinking seriously about their faith must answer: “How does my personal Theological Opinions (System) deal with each of these? It makes no… Read more »
bucketheadbaptist,
Does the Explore the Bible series have a balanced approach to you?
Buckethead,
I’ve heard most everyone all my life say we are spiritually dead prior to knowing Christ based on this verse, and I did not grow up in a Calvinistic church by any strech of the imagination.
Also, your second point about Genesis 6:1-4 makes no sense and hardly does justice to Calvinists regarding spiritual warfare and even less justice to the biblical text.
Andrew, You would be correct in pointing out the idea of being spiritually dead PRIOR to knowing Christ. That is exactly Paul’s point in the scripture… HOWEVER… the TGP’s take on it does NOT make that clear. That lesson’s objective is to take you to Total Depravity… and leave you there. That’s irresponsible. It’s also irresponsible to totally leave out the purpose and direction that Paul was going with this scripture… it was all about Spiritual Warfare… and the TGP only focused on Sin Nature. The OLD Sin Nature before being quickened. As for the Genesis 6:1-4 comment… it took… Read more »
Abrasiveness aside, the position itself is sufficient to disuade me from further investigation.
The biggest barrier to discovering truth, is the assumption that you already have it.
Wow, that was an ironic statement if I ever heard one.
Buckethead,
You said, “The Augustinian/Calvinist take on the Flood account is an absolute lie. And you guys are teaching it to the little ones with the TGP.”
In what way is this an “absolute lie”?
There are two views on Genesis 6:1-4. The “Angel View”… and the “Sethite View”… Augustine introduced the Sethite view. There was no Sethite view in the early church… because the Jews taught it exactly as Angel View and had for millenia… For centuries since Augustine… we’ve been told we can pick and choose which view you want to follow. I’m telling you … No longer. Why? Because the SBC does not take an “official” position on these views… but EFFECTIVELY they teach the Sethite view … and they do it consistently whenever it comes up in the remainder of the… Read more »
Buckethead,
Would it surprise you if I could give you a name of a Calvinist who believes as you do on those being angels in Gen. 6:1-4? John MacArthur teaches that those were angels.
Your conviction that “Calvinism 100% depends on” some strange belief about the Nephilim is absurd. You need help, and the comments section on my post is not the place to get it. I strongly recommend you seek out sound biblical teachers to help you with interpreting the Bible or at minimum take this discussion to your own blog.
All,
I would strongly recommend not engaging BucketheadBaptist on this forum.
This post has been hijacked pretty egregiously. Let’s get back to the topic or move on.