In three weeks, there is a great training opportunity for church leaders across the Southeast taking place at the PLNTD Nashville Conference. On Nov. 2-3, Ed Stetzer and Trevin Wax will be leading a weekend focused on cultivating gospel-driven leadership in the local church. There is no shortage of leadership books and resources today, and the same is becoming true for gospel-centered theology. However, the connection between gospel-driven theology and church leadership is relatively new, and this conference hopes to forward the conversation by focusing on how the gospel shapes the leader as well as drives his philosophy of leadership in the context of a local church.Whether you are pastor, teacher, disciple maker, small group leader, seminary/college student, or church planter, this training event will assist you in one of the most important aspects of Great Commission advance – raising up and training gospel-driven leaders. Along with main sessions, there will be breakout sessions, Q&A discussions, and free resources given to everyone who attends. Church leaders seeking to take the gospel and mission of the church seriously will be instructed and encouraged to raise up and send out leaders to reach our communities of Christ.
For the next two weeks, you can register for this event with a special promotional code and receive 25% off registration (normally $49). Get the details on the conference and register with the special code “sbcvoices” to take advantage of the special discount!
Does anyone else see the irony of this post?
🙂
David
What irony are you talking about?
The irony of the Gospel Project being looked upon by many as a Calvinist propaganda material, and the second man in charge in the Founders organization writing a post to promote this conference on the GP…..that irony. It caused a little chuckle for me on this fine morning.
Now, I’m not saying that Tim cant promote it. I’m not saying that Tim promoting it means that it is a Calvinist propaganda thing. But, the very fact that Tim Brister was the one writing this post to promote this GP conference just seemed ironic in a funny kind of way. I bet Rick Patrick and Peter Lumpkins will get a big kick out of this.
It just struck my funny bone, as I thought about all the hoopla and discussion about the GP, since it’s been announced.
David
Jared,
You know what’s even funnier? lol. Insert embarassed face. I totally read this as a conference on the GP….lol. I just re read the post. It’s on a Gospel DRIVEN leadership. I saw Gospel Driven, Trevin Wax, and Ed Stetzer; and my mind read that as Gospel Project. Wow.
Okay….the irony is kind of….well…gone. lol
David
David, I wonder if that’s just a slip or if your mind read what it wanted to read? I wonder if this happens often on both sides of the issue?
David’s point still stands. Whenever I see the word “gospel” now, I think of it as a buzz word for reformed theology… “Together for the Gospel” is a reformed conference. “The Gospel Project” is written by reformed theologians. This “Gospel-Driven Leadership Conference” promoted by Brister is really just more of the same.
Can we all admit that this “gospel as an adjective” thing is getting a little out of hand? Just throwing out my gospel opinion here. 🙂
Rick, when I see the word “gospel,” I think “Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead to forgive sinners and bring them into right relationship with God.”
Jared,
That’s because, as everyone knows, people like you who are truly gospel focused and sprinkle the word gospel four or five times in every sentence are intrinsically more spiritual than the heathen pastors like myself who do not attend such conferences.
Rick, where did that comment come from?
Ah but Jared, clearly when you say it, you really mean the reformed Jesus lived a reformed life, died for the elect only to forgive a select few and bring them into a right relationship with the reformed God, only if they persevere to the end and only use the ESV.
Jared,
That comment was born from the frustration those of us who are not reformed sometimes feel when words like “grace” and “covenant” and “sovereign” and “gospel” become so associated with a doctrine we disaffirm that it can be difficult to declare what we do believe without disabusing people of the undesired reformed connotations.
Volfan: Trevin Wax and Ed Stetzer are not exactly noted as Reformed types.
Rick,
I’m not reformed, though I did grow up with the Warden of a Maximum Security Prison as a neighbor.
I also do not share your perspective on a conspiracy. However, I do think that “gospel, sovereignty, grace” and other such terms are loaded differently these days than when I started in ministry.
These words have become buzz-words for some people. They cannot be taken at “face value” anymore. Gospel does not mean simply the “death, burial, and resurrection” of Jesus Christ (1Cor. 15)–at least not in every case.
How much difference this present conflation of terms with a narrow theological presupposition makes is yet to be seen.
Frank,
Glad to hear we agree on the loaded terminology issue.
But please allow me a moment once more to disaffirm my belief in any kind of “conspiracy.” This is a term that has been thrown at me by many others as well, and its use, I feel, is offensive, marginalizing and just plain inaccurate. I would love to set the record straight.
A Calvinist “conspiracy” would be some kind of secret gathering of Calvinist leaders from different areas and different organizations scheming together in secret to overthrow the Southern Baptist Convention. Think Russell Crowe’s John Nash in “A Beautiful Mind.”
By contrast, I am much more comfortable espousing the existence of a genuine “reform agenda” as clearly published on the Founders website and in the book “The Quiet Revolution.” Unlike a conspiracy, a reform agenda does not require secret handshakes and nefarious connections. All I need in order to contend for a reform agenda is to be able to prove this simple fact: “SOME people in the Southern Baptist Convention would like reformed theology to be embraced more and more in our churches and in our institutions.” Is there really any doubt? Not only is this reform agenda easier to prove, but it doesn’t make me sound like the village idiot.
If there is indeed any aspect of the reform agenda that makes it a HIDDEN agenda, then I would argue it is only because the vast majority of Southern Baptists in the pews are still relatively unaware of the growing tensions in our denomination that have resulted in the formation of Dr. Page’s Calvinism Committee.
It boggles my mind that you look at the words “Gospel-Driven Leadership” and read “Calvinists trying to convert people to their soteriology.” There is nothing of the sort in the conference description. In fact, what you do see here is a conference about multiplying leaders who are driven by a commitment to the Gospel and who are committed to fulfill the Great Commission by making disciples. How can you not be for this? The only answer is that you have an axe to grind and read everything through one lens.
Give me the names of the steering committee for the conference so I can see if this is a Southern Baptist leadership conference or some other kind that, like Methodists and Presbyterians, may be terrific for the kingdom generally, but would not interest me personally.
Steering committee for a conference? Really Rick?
I am the director of the PLNTD Network, and I am privileged to have a team who works with me in building the network but a steering committee we know nothing of. If having a steering committee is necessary to determine if it is a verified southern baptist conference, then I suppose we do not qualify.
Tim,
I don’t care what you call the leadership group–steering committee or planning team or whatever, but I do care about the theological commitments of those leaders when it comes time to financially support a new church. It tells me what kind of church is being reproduced.
Rick said, “may be terrific for the kingdom generally, but would not interest me personally.”
That’s telling right there. And in my opinion much of the problem. I hope I’m not reading into words here but it sounds to me like you are saying that you aren’t personally interested in the kingdom. Only the non-Reformed SBC slice of it. And that’s sad.
Mike,
No, gracious, no, that’s not what I’m saying. I don’t attend Lutheran Leadership Training conferences, even though they may bless and advance the Kingdom. Same for Methodists and Presbyterians. They don’t interest me personally. I don’t oppose them, but neither am I a part of them. And I suppose the same is true for Reformed Baptist conferences–even Reformed Southern Baptist ones. We’re not on the same page. I don’t oppose them, but I’m not really part of them. They’re doing their own thing. May God bless them.
The issue is NOT that I oppose what people with other theologies are doing to advance the kingdom of God. I simply am not PART of what every group is doing. I am very comfortable being PART of specifically Southern Baptist church planting and missions, so long as the kind of church I would be planting would believe the things reflected in my own congregation’s theological beliefs.
Together for the Gospel…the Gospel Coalition…the Gospel Project…Gospel Driven Leadership.
Are these not all led by reformed individuals? That’s all I’m really saying. It seems the term has been hijacked a bit, at least in reference to organizations, publications, conferences and so on.
Think of it!
Christians, who happened to be reformed, promoting the Gospel.
Hijacked?
from who?
To hijack something is to make it unavailable for the other to use.
So now you can not use the term Gospel to explain what you believe?
You are busy complaining that your brothers in Christ are using the term Gospel to promote the Gospel. So you are showing yourself as a divisive person.
The question is: are these organizations, publications, conferences, and so on, NOT promoting the Gospel?
If so, show us how.
If not, quit sinning.
How dare Calvinists keep the central thing central! How dare they!
Parsonsmike,
I don’t believe I am guilty of sinning, but rather, simply expressing the view, shared by others I might add, that the term “gospel” if it is repeatedly used in its adjectival form to refer to some type of reformed organization, will indeed eventually fall the way of “grace” and “covenant,” hardly able to be mentioned without overtones of a very specific theological persuasion.
As evidence of that, consider how easily David above misinterpreted the Gospel Leadership Conference as reflective of the Gospel Project Sunday School curriculum. It’s “Gospel-this” and “Gospel-that” and it’s always some reformed group. I’m just observing that the term itself, if continually used this way, may come to mean something more (or is it less?) than it should.
Speaking of grace, feel free to keep pointing that finger.
Rick,
The main question is:
Are these groups promoting the Gospel?
If so, what is your problem?
If not please specifically point where and how they fall short.
And do you think that no other non-calvinist group is not using the term Gospel to promote their Gospel endeavors? If they are, it invalidates your weak objection.
If not, then why are you not thanking these calvinistic groups for being the only ones using the term Gospel to promote the truth [instead of objecting to their using the term Gospel to promote the Gospel]?
David made a reading mistake and apologized for it. Do you object that the C’s are promoting the Gospel? Isn’t that what they are supposed to do? yep.
You have no cause for complaint, yet you keep complaining. That others have similar concerns doesn’t really mean you have the liberty to be divisive. Rather you should like Paul, rejoice that the Gospel is being preached.
And as a pastor, do you not point out sin? Do you think it is not gracious to point out a brother’s sin? If you are not sinning, please show how these Gospel promotions are wrong, either in promoting a false Gospel, or in not promoting the Gospel at all.
Sorry for agreeing with you Rick.
OK. You don’t believe there is any conspiracy. OK. Then you have nothing to gripe about because other Baptists are simply exercising their right to promote their beliefs.
If there is not conspiracy, then I don’t understand your animous.
However, I have to say that when you talk about an “agenda,” you sound an awful lot like someone talking about a “conspiracy.” I guess I was just confused.
Fair enough, Frank. It apparently is a very difficult concept to differentiate.
Once again, in my view, “conspiracy” seems shady and weird, while someone with an “agenda” simply knows what they want and are working, alongside others, to accomplish that very thing.
The question for me is not “Does some shadowy organization exist secretly to overthrow the SBC?” but rather “Are there some people and churches who would love to see the SBC become more reformed in its churches and institutions?”
I think the answer to the first is “no” but the answer to the second is “yes.”
Honestly, guys, where is Calvinism even mentioned here?
This comment stream is ridiculous!
If you don’t want to attend the conference, don’t. If you want to have a leadership conference of your own, I will certainly give space to advertise it.
Dave: I think you are right .
Dave,
I was just responding to Rick’s general comment about the use of terms which I think is a valid argument.
I don’t follow the “who’s in what camp” game much so I don’t know if that applies to this conference or not.
In my defense I can only say what I said to my Dad many time growing up with two brothers and two sisters: “He (she) started it.”
Where is this a conference to promote the Gospel Project? Nobody told me…
BTW, I am speaking to the Anglicans tomorrow– perhaps I want to Anglicize the SBC.
Oh, and I just returned from speaking at Liberty Convo. Do you think I am trying to turn the SBC independent Baptist?
Next week it is Calvary Chapel… that could be really bad. 😉
It’s a sad thing when we “read into” everything rather than just be thankful we are all in a denominational family together and conferences are an opportunity to provoke one another to love and good deeds… but that’s just me talking crazy..
Ed
Ed Stetzer
E (lection)
D (ordt)
S (overeign)
T (ulip)
E (lection)
T (otal Depravity)
Z (wingli)
E (lection)
R (eformed)
bwhahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Totally awesome!
Captain Flagg from MASH was my hero.
“Reader’s Digest? Remove the 3rd, 5th, and 6th letter and what you do have? Red Digest”!!!!
Now that is funny.
Yeah, that is a gold star comment.
Ed,
I’m not sure I understand the above (or below. I never know where these things hit) posts.
You are speaking to Anglicans, Charismatics, and Independents according to your post. I thought you were an employee of the Southern Baptist Convention.
You have aroused my curiosity by wondering if you are using your postion or SBC resources to promote yourself and your personal ministry. I certainly don’t see how the groups you mention further the SBC mission.
I’m thinking of a former NAMB president who was harshly criticized for using his position to promote his own ministry.
You have put this out in the blogosphere and so I think it may need to be clarified so as not to be subject to rumor.
Sorry I have missed all the craziness. Here’s the deal. I invite ANY of you who think there is a secret Calvinist agenda to come to the conference. David Worley, it is a short drive for you. Bring a hidden voice recorder and have your own copy of everything said and done at this conference. I will waive your registration so you can come for FREE.
It is simply unbelievable to me that you guys can jump to conclusions based on such skewed perspectives of your own making. If your contribution to the SBC is conspiracy theories and codes, then so be it. I just want to think my fellow non-Calvinist Southern Baptists have more to offer the Great Commission.
Tim,
I will not be attending. I dont want to have a secret voice recorder. I believe I explained my comment above…I misread it. I just found it a little funny, if it had’ve been a GP conference type of thing….after all the talk about the GP and Calvinism.
BTW, Tim, who is on your conference team(steering committee)? 🙂
David
Frank, my comment, though appearing below yours, was not in any way directed at you. It was a general observation.
This is a leadership conference, sponsored by a Baptist pastor and a church-planting organization he is founding. It is not a convention-sponsored conference.
It is not a Calvinism conference.
It is a leadership conference. It is not a conference on the Gospel Project or the Five Points or anything.
It is a leadership conference – which is right in Ed’s wheelhouse. I just don’t see the problem.
Ed, Dave, Tim and Jared,
If I am indeed the crazy one for assuming that this is all code for reformed theology, then why does the sponsoring organization, PLNTD, list on its website “core values of being gospel-centered, missionally driven, distinctively baptist, and CONFESSIONALLY REFORMED?”
If this IS a conspiracy, it’s not a very good one, because you’re not even keeping it secret that you are reformed in your theology, but you are promoting it on your public website. All of which indicates that there is, in fact, NO CONSPIRACY, just as I have been saying all along, and that there are NO CONSPIRACY NUT CASES either, especially not yours truly.
This conference is sponsored by a reformed church planting network, and everybody with half a brain knows it. To deny it any longer is absurd.
Rick:
I am glad you are so engaged in the inner workings so as to make such confident assertions. Perhaps you were not aware of our training event in Portland, Maine two weeks ago that invested in guys all across New England without reference to Reformed theology or checking off “points” at the door. Perhaps you are not aware of what we are doing to resource and cooperate with other networks, such as Exponential Network, where I was interviewed regarding one of their recently published e-books. I don’t feel like it is incumbent upon myself to show how diverse our efforts are to invest in Great Commission churches (or those moving in that direction), but I, and the network I lead, have nothing to hide.
Yes, we are confessionally explicit. If you look to our basis, we use the Abstract of Principles. We find that a helpful guide and consensus for those seeking to (a) join our online community and (b) pursue affiliation or membership once our network officially launches later next year. Nevertheless, our training events and resources are open to any who finds them helpful. They are not forced to attend to use any of what we offer, but we are glad to know that many beyond our “tribe” are doing just that.
The posture of PLNTD is to serve local churches and their leaders for Great Commission advance — disciple making, leadership development, church planting. Our regional training events, such as the one we’re hosting in Nashville, are for that very purpose. Anyone with integrity would take the time to get to know that they are talking about before jumping to conclusions without any first-hand knowledge.
I am going to leave the debates regarding Calvinism and whatever agenda out there for you guys to hash out. As one of my non-Calvinist friends has eloquently stated, I don’t want to be known for making a point but making a difference. By God’s grace, I hope to be found in the latter.
If PLNTD is indeed willing to partner with, assist and support churches and pastors that are NOT confessionally reformed, then why indicate that you ARE confessionally reformed? Why not just say you are open to Southern Baptists and non-Southern Baptists of any theological persuasion whatsoever? Why identify as reformed if there is no exclusion, say, of those whose theology is TRANFORMED rather than REFORMED, TRADITIONALIST rather than CALVINIST? For that matter, why not include several such persons on your leadership team?
Frankly, this just has the appearance of a Southern Baptist Acts 29.
Rick,
Again, if you are inclined to learn of the various ways and levels in which we affiliate, partner, and plant churches, let me know. Our confessional basis serves a purpose, as does our core values and vision for church planting. However, we want to speak into and encourage anyone who could benefit from our resources and regional training events. There are aspects of the network open to all, other aspects open upon agreement/consensus, and other aspects available upon membership. So while we can help resource someone without our core convictions, we would not receive one upon membership or as a plant (in the same way I can help feed the poor among a Methodist or Presbyterian, but I would not accept one into membership if they have not been baptized by immersion after having trusted Christ).
We are not operating under denominational categories. While we are grateful to be involved in helping Southern Baptist churches, we are certainly not restricted to working ONLY with Southern Baptists. And for the doctrinal consensus of the Abstract, I am encouraged to know that PLNTD is one of MANY new networks forming in the SBC that hold to such theological pre-commitments, including SendSFL and NACPF. As I mentioned in my previous comment (which I assume you did not read carefully), I stated the purpose of our core values and confessional consensus is for network community and affiliation/membership in the network. There are several other aspects which do not require one to agree to such convictions to benefit from our resources and regional training events. EVERY network or organization has principles, beliefs, and convictions that bring definition, vision, and clarity to the mission. PLNTD is no different.
Rick, the assumption you seem to continually make is that a Calvinist is always concerned most with promoting Calvinism. I just don’t think that is fair. You consistently assign the motives and purposes of the Founders to all Calvinists. Simply not fair, in my estimation.
As one who falls within the boundaries of Calvinism, I can tell you that promoting or advancing Calvinism is way down on my list of concerns. Having talked with people involved in the Gospel Project, promoting Calvinism is just not one of their concerns.
This is a leadership conference. But because someone who is self-identified as Reformed leads it, the assumption is made that it must be designed to promote Calvinism – whether overtly or subtly.
I just don’t think that is fair.
Sorry, but if you really want to gain trust and have a wide tent, then you absolutely, positively must (as in “definitely do this next time”) invite some Traditionalists to the party when you plan a Sunday School curriculum like The Gospel Project or a Leadership Conference like Cultivating Gospel Leadership.
We KNOW you want us to ATTEND the conference. We SUSPECT that you want that so you may INFLUENCE us toward CALVINISM. If that is NOT your goal, then what do you have to lose by inviting a whole bunch of us who are NOT confessionally reformed to the planning meetings ahead of time?
I am told that there are many non-Calvinists on the writing staff of Gospel Project. I don’t know if any of them signed the Traditionalist Document, but TGP writing team is (from the information I was given) mostly non-Calvinists.
I was given the opposite information. So we have a pretty basic factual disagreement here.
Difference is that Dave (and myself) heard that from the editors of TGP, who would know better than anyone.
Right on the money, Dave. My prayers and focus is on the Third Great Awakening. The theology to such a visitation is secondary in that it is not the focus but the means to the end. We speak for the theology only with a view to the Awakening of the whole earth for a 1000 generations, but the glory of Christ in the salvation of the lost is the ultimate interest.
Rick,
I am speaking at a conference that is sponsored by a confessionally Reformed. Who denied that?
Ed
Ed,
It appears to me that you speak at all kinds of conferences–sometimes even Southern Baptist ones. I don’t think you denied the reformed nature of PLNTD, but I did more or less have to coax it out of all of you.
First, David saw irony in Tim’s promotion of a “Gospel” Leadership Conference, innocently assuming it was connected to the Gospel Project.
I followed with a discussion of the way the word “gospel” has come to be associated with reformed theology.
Dave then indicated there was nothing Calvinist about all of this, even calling the comment stream ridiculous.
Then, I pointed out that the sponsoring organization identified itself as Calvinist.
No offense, guys. Enjoy your conference. Have a great day.
He stated that nothing in the post mentioned Calvinism, which is true. And makes your statement false.
While the post per se did not mention Calvinism, the PLNTD network, upon further investigation, was found to be confessionally Calvinist.
Where did I state that the post mentioned Calvinism? Regardless, the organization has Calvinist roots and the word “gospel” in its name.
My primary point is that the term “gospel” is becoming almost a buzz word or synonym for “reformed leaning” conference/curricula/church planting organization, etc.
Rick:
Dave Miller said “Honestly, guys, where is Calvinism even mentioned here?”
You said “Dave then indicated there was nothing Calvinist about all of this”
Dave’s statement was true. Your statement was false. Simple as that. And referring to my statement below, please provide the terms that the Reformed are allowed to use.
I think I now see your point about Dave bringing up Calvinism. There technically was not a mention of Calvinism in the post. True. And technically, his question did not deny “anything Calvinist about this” which is the terminology I used. I still think that’s a bit pedantic, Job. Clearly, Calvinism is an issue with PLNTD, the sponsor of the conference. It’s on their site for the world to see.
As for terminology, they can use whatever terms they like, this being a free country and all, but I am also free to express the opinion that using the term “gospel” which we all agree with to describe their particular theology, which we all do not agree with, is offensive to those of us who do not wish to give up the term.
As for my preferred expressions for Reformed Calvinist conferences, how about “reformed” and “Calvinist?”
Rick,
No coaxing here. I think it is pretty obvious was PLNTD is. Please don’t imply that you had to coax it out of me. 🙂
Again, I would just point out what I responded to– this is not a Gospel Project conference, this is a PLNTD conference about leadership.
It is a shame that things so often spiral in the same way.
Ed
Seriously brothers, are we supposed to put up with a person who continues to cause division?
The Trad statement was a poor display of theology, but that does not mean that those who signed are not our brothers in Christ.
But when any person seeks to stir things up and has no substantive base for doing so, should they be entertained?
The Gospel is the Gospel. If one of our brothers lacks trust in some of us so that when he hears that some say the word [Gospel], he assumes, and cant help himself assume that we are saying something else, and so reacts in word and print that way, is he not causing division needlessly? Is he not also bearing false witness against his brothers?
My prayers go up for him. I pray that he will have confidence in the Lord that God will direct His people in the way of righteousness and truth, and that sinful assumptions and false witness are not of God and do not imitate Jesus.
I have an agenda. I hope you all have one as well. And I hope that your agendas match mine: to do all I can to glorify Jesus through submission and obedience to Him.
And golly gee, I happen to be a calvinist. That means i see the Word of God a little differently than some of my brothers who are not calvinists. But I unite with them in the Gospel which is Christ.
And i pray that the Holy Spirit continues to mature each one of us, individually and corporately into the maturity of Jesus our Lord. And i trust the Spirit to guide us toward the goal and purposes of God despite our lack of complete doctrinal unity and our own weaknesses.
And though i disagree with Trads understanding of some doctrinal points, I know not one of them that is preaching >^another^< gospel. So if, and when I engage them on our difference in understandings I assume the words they speak or post mean what the words should mean, and what they have meant. To do otherwise is to make sinful assumptions and to bear false witness against them.
I’m a Sovereign Grace believer, too, but my pastor signed the Trad. Statement and he has already preached sermons that are calvinistic enough to get him kicked out of that group in my book. O well.
Parsonsmike,
Thank you for putting up with me, and also for your prayers. I am not sowing seeds of division, just asking genuine questions about the way Southern Baptists have the word “Gospel” in all of our initiatives these days. This has not been true for all of these years, and, believe me, we have indeed been preaching the Gospel.
I am primarily making the observation that the term itself has become associated with the Reformed wing of the SBC. Feel free to disagree. But know that I am not angry, not sowing seeds of discord, and not stirring things up. Have a blessed night, brother.
Rick,
I will continue to pray for you brother.
And no Rick, you are not asking genuine questions about the way the word Gospel is used. You are complaining about some people’s use of the word and doing so without any legitimate basis.
So again, are these groups not promoting the Gospel or are they promoting a false Gospel?
If neither, then your complaining is illegitimate and divisive.
If you want to use the word Gospel to promote a non-reformed conference on the Gospel, to balance out what you consider a one sided display of word usage, go ahead. No one is stopping you. You claim to be part of the majority, so why not go to them and complain, asking them to use the word Gospel in their many conferences and meetings? With such a great majority, their quick response will more than level the ‘playing field’. And I bet not a single reformed person will object but instead applaud their desire to promote the Gospel.
Now is the term Gospel associated with the reformed wing of the SBC? Nope.
Ask most pastors, most member, most missionaries and even the reformed ones will not think that. Perversion of the truth is a sin Pastor Rick.
“Gospel Deeps” by Jared Wilson: “the love of God violates human freedoms constantly and consistently.”
You guys just keep pouring on more “Gospel Stuff” I disagree with.
Rick
Jared is not SBC. Sorry to disappoint there.
Jim,
That does not disappoint at all. It is rather good news.
The unsettling part is that his view is influencing the pastors of the SBC as they read about this “violating” God.
Again, my primary point is the use of the term “Gospel” in front of just about anything reformed, and how, over time, the word will come to carry a meaning that is uniquely identified with the gospel view that sees God as “violating human freedoms.”
Thanks for covering my back, David. As it turns out, I was given the code just minutes ago to visit someone in the Psych Ward, which I will be doing this evening. Please pray for me as I minister to her.
And don’t worry, Matt. Even though mental illness is a serious concern, I will not attempt to steal her pills or be admitted as a patient.
Rick:
If the Reformed’s use of “gospel”, “grace”, “sovereign” and “covenant” offends you, then please give a list of terms that the Reformed are permitted to use without causing offense.
And there goes the moratorium on the “Great Cavinism Debate” flying right out the window…….
We are not debating Calvinism Dale.
Rick has not attacked a single tenet and no one has defended a single tenet.
Instead we are addressing one man’s problem with reformed leaning folk using the word Gospel when describing their Gospel oriented conferences and initiatives.
Do I have that right Rick?
Mike, thanks for the clarification.
I stand by my observation.
Dale,
Okay, lets debate something else.
How does my interaction with Rick qualify as a debate?
Feeling fiesty tonight, Mike? I was commenting on the direction of the entire thread, not just your interaction with Rick. So this is not about you.
(-:
If the word Gospel is associated with reformed theology, the question that needs to asked is why it isn’t associated with neo-Traditionalist theology? That isn’t the fault of reformed people. Perhaps instead of asking us (by implication) to use it less, perhaps you should use it more.
It sort of falls along the lines of the Corinthian divisions. “I am of Paul” “I am of Cephas” and so on. But along comes one group that seems to claim a special spirituality. “I am of Jesus.”
Now, please don’t try to bait me into saying there is anything wrong with being on the side of Jesus! There’s not. But there is something wrong if you think you have a special connection with Him that others do not.
Similarly, there are those who believe in the need for the so-called “recovery of the gospel” and by that they mean specifically the reformed interpretation of it as opposed to my understanding.
My concern is not that I am using the term too little. I am using it just as I always have. But others are clearly out-gospeling me in their terminology, not necessarily their evangelistic practices.
So the concern is a semantic issue and not a spiritual one. Reformed people don’t have more gospel than everyone else, nor have they recovered a better gospel than everyone else.
Rick: It all comes back to Founders with you, and (as has been pointed out by others) your attempts to lump all Calvinists in with Founders. Now you want to us to stop using the word Gospel? (or use it less). Seriously? Honestly, your problem is not with our camp but your own.
This is nothing new to you because you have been one of the primary ones pointing this out: The reformed in the SBC have been successful in getting their message out and mobilizing and organizing. Neo-Traditionalists, whoever they are, have not. That is not the fault of the reformed. If you want to out-Gospel us, out-leader us, and out-conference us, then you need to get started. You claim to be in the majority, so it shouldn’t be difficult. But complaining about it doesn’t seem to be doing any good.
Rick. Can you provide even one quote that shows a Calvinist in the SBC saying they have more gospel than anyone else.
That sounds like a false statement to me.
Falsehood has no place in a Christian discussion.
Perhaps I am completely in the dark. Please enlighten me.
Rick,
Myopic. You are Trad because you think that position is closer to the truth than the C position. No one is supposed to be boasting on how close they are to Jesus.
No one is.
No one is claiming they have more Gospel than you.
No one is fighting against you.
You are the one causing division.
You are the one declaring that others are using the word Gospel too much.
Trust God Rick and stop complaining about others unless they are doing wrong. If they sin expose it. If they are not sinning, then you are.
Parsonsmike,
I thought I was having a reasonable chat on a Southern Baptist blog over the growing tendency of reformed organizations to describe themselves as “Gospel Something,” taking exception to it since I, too, believe the gospel but do not at all identify with these organizations.
However, you have said that I am “myopic,” that I am “causing division,” that in lieu of my approach I should “trust God,” which infers that I am not doing that already somehow, that I should stop “complaining” when in fact I simply call it commenting, and then you close it all by stating that I am “sinning.”
May God bless you with a wonderful night’s rest and a blessed day tomorrow. It’s Friday. I hope you and your family and friends enjoy a blessed weekend and some inspiring services on Sunday. Good night.
Joe Biden is a Calvinist.
🙂
I noticed a striking similarity between Biden’s grin and that of Rick in his profile pic….You sure he’s not a neo-Traditionalist? *
* An emoticon just didn’t seem appropriate after watching that “debate”….
Yeah, it’s too smirky.
Tim,
Remember when you stopped in Atlanta a couple years ago and had coffee with Nathan and I? You clearly had an agenda as I recall. I hate to do this to you but…
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
You clearly stated an agenda for sharing the gospel and bringing people into the Kingdom. You even went so far as to have a worship service in the park.
Sorry to expose you like this, bro.
This comment stream is exhibit A for my decision to limit discussions of Calvinism in recent weeks. We’ve had great discussions about a variety of topics. And here, in a promotional post about a LEADERSHIP conference and our general inability to have a cordial and helpful conversation on Calvinism is evidenced once again.
I hope, Tim, that your conference on Leadership will be greatly blessed. I wish I could attend.
Dave,
Perhaps I should not have responded when someone brought up the “C” word.
I was just amazed, almost mesmerized at how it could be woven into a post on a “conference on leadership.”
It’s like I was sucked into a vortex or some Star Trek-like black hole.
I do think, however, it actually may help promote Tim’s converence even more. What is it they say, “I don’t care if the publicity is good or bad as long as they spell my name correctly.”
Blessings on all — elect, select, and suspect.
It’s like I was sucked into a vortex or some Star Trek-like black hole.
It’s called the mirror-verse. In there, you have a goatee, and you’re eeeevil.
Makes you wonder – what color suit does Dave Miller’s mirror-verse alternate wear?
inspect, detect and reject.
Rick:
The first rule of holes is when you are in a hole, stop digging.
Tim, and Mike – Proverbs 26:5 – remember is and apply it in this situation.
Rick:
I was not being pendantic. I was being factual. I quoted Dave Miller’s actual words, and did so correctly and in context. You meanwhile got the content, context and the intent of Miller’s words wrong. If I were to claim that you said “2+2=3” and someone else were to state that you never said any such thing, would that person be pendantic? Of course not.
“As for my preferred expressions for Reformed Calvinist conferences, how about “reformed” and “Calvinist?”
Why do you feel that Reformed/Calvinists should only use those terms and nothing else, while trads would be free to use every other term but those (which they obviously wouldn’t want to anyway)? And incidentally, while we are speaking of offending people, does it not concern you in the least that the Reformed/Calvinists might be offended by your claims that descriptors that are A) Bible based and B) have been used by the Reformed to describe themselves for centuries should be abandoned? The Reformed have made heavy use of “sovereign”, “covenant”, “grace” etc. since almost the very beginning, so if anything the false charge that the modern Reformed are trying to redefine or co-opt those terms is what should be offensive. If anything is offensive, it is trying to tell modern Baptists that they can’t use the same terminology that Spurgeon, Carey, Bunyan, Judson, Fuller etc. used.
And it is curious. I would imagine that the next Reformed who says “I am offended by these John 3:16 conferences because it falsely claims that only the trads believe in John 3:16 when we Reformed most certainly do” will be the first. Along similar lines, the Reformed do not nearly so often claim to be offended by the “whosoever will” sloganeering or by “sinner’s prayer” resolutions, but instead merely wish that those who indulge in them state where these things actually appear in the Bible.
Oh my. It appears that I am now indeed being pendantic. What a card I am, I suppose.
This conversation, this issue, this dialogue that is full of bitterness and anger is going to split and ultimately destroy the SBC. Cs and Ts believe that people need to repent of sin and turn to faith in Christ, but because we can’t agree on the theological ins and out, we are fighting over control. It’s worldly, it’s sinful and it’s shameful. I for one want no part of it.
@Dan:
This blog post was created for the simple purpose of publicizing and promoting a 2 day leadership conference at a local church, which is one of the most routine things in evangelical church life. The ugly turn that the conversation took was solely the work of two individuals.
Right, I wasn’t condemning the post, just the conversation, which you correctly described as ugly. I would actually really like to attend this conference if I could.
Job,
2 individuals? Seriously? You read this comment thread…before it was mostly deleted, and you think 2 individuals were responsible for the downward trend it took? This is exactly a lot of the problem….
Secondly, I misread the post. I said that. I laughed at myself for doing so. I simply thought it was funny that Tim Brister, the second man in the Founders, would promote a Gospel Project conference, after all the talk about the GP being a Calvinist thing. I thought that was funny in an ironic way. That’s all, Bro.
Thirdly, I could care less whether the Founders, or Plantd, or whoever has a Gospel driven leadership conference. Good for them. May the Lord bless them.
David
Also, I love my Calvinist Brothers. I have had Calvinists preach at my Church. I do not hate Calvinists. I am not against Calvinists. In fact, our theology is very similar, although we accentuate our differences many times…especially in blog conversations.
I am against aggressive, New Calvinism. And, there’s a lot of us, out here, who dont want the SBC to turn into a Reformed denomination.
But anyway, God bless yall. May the Lord keep the SBC from dividing up into 100 different splinter groups….because that’s the way it seems to be heading.
David
Um, is it just me, or have all of Rick’s comments disappeared?
I was not on the blog all day today, for various reasons. A series of comments here were deleted, and I’m not sure what happened. It wasn’t me. But the comment stream is particularly confusing now.
I think the best thing to do here is to simply close the comment stream here. It seems hopelessly bumfuzzled.