First, let me start with a confession. Today was lots of fun for an Iowa pastor!
I got to spend time with some really cool people, people whose names I have known for years and with whom I have interacte only (or mostly) online. I got to chat with Ed Stetzer, Trevin Wax, to meet JD Greear and Matt Chandler, to have lunch with Travis Loller from Associated Press, and to share meals and coffee with Matt Svoboda, Micah Fries, and the Godfather of Baptist blogging, the inimitable Marty Duren.
And LifeWay demonstrated some wonderful Southern hospitality. They brought me here, put me up in a hotel and fed me some mighty fine BBQ. And the webcast was really fun. They were amazing hosts the whole time.
So, it would be easy for someone to accuse me of being hoodwinked by their hospitality. I don’t think so. I tell you what impressed me more than the nice hotel and the great BBQ was the passion of the people for the gospel project (and for Christ himself) and the integrity of their convictions. Sitting at breakfast this morning, talking to Trevin, hearing Matt Chandler at chapel, watching the webcast in the studio – it all convinced me that these people are committed to doing something good for Southern Baptists. They believe in the Gospel Project.
And so do I.
I think those who take the time to actually look at the materials and not just listen those who began condemning the project before even seeing the materials will be impressed. This isn’t about convincing people of certain letters in a flowery acronym, its about exalting Christ and helping people to see the overarching theme of the Bible – Jesus.
The Bible is not just a treasure trove of moral stories, but a grand narrative that points to and focuses on Christ. One of the buzzwords I kept hearing today stuck with me. “The Bible is one story and Jesus is the hero.”
Here are my thoughts:
1) In private conversations and in public statements today I saw no evidence that promulgating Calvinism was a driving purpose. In fact, I was told by more than one person that it was simply not a factor. One person told me that they were not going to worry about the naysayers and critics, but were going to stay focused on producing a quality, Christ-exalting, gospel-focused curriculum and let that speak for itself.
If I thought this was Calvinist indoctrination, I would not support it. I am convinced it is gospel-indoctrination and I am all-in on that. I cannot imagine that anything I heard today would offend any Christian regardless of their position of “the doctrines of grace.”
If you say, “Of course they didn’t say anything today about that. They are trying to hide that part from the public,” I say – prove it or keep it to yourself. That is an accusation of a lack of integrity against men whom I believe are not deceivers, liars or manipulators. To me, accusing someone of that kind of deception is a serious accusation – a moral failing. If you can’t prove it then don’t lodge false accusations against men of God.
2) The Gospel Project looks like its going to be BIG. Already 4500 churches have signed on to the pilot program and they are hoping to more than double that in the near future. During the first half-hour of the webcast today, #thegospelproject was trending #2 on Twitter. There is a lot of buzz and a lot of excitement.
3) The proof is in the pudding. All of this will either succeed or flop based on the qualities of the lessons that will start going out this fall. I’m expecting great things.
A Challenge
I’ve heard all the complaints about the make-up of the advisory board on this one. We don’t need to rehash that. Here’s my challenge. Can anyone find anything anyone said on the webcast today or in the sample lessons that are available online that buttresses suspicions that this is a Calvinist indoctrination tool? Has anyone seen any evidence of that in the words of the leaders or in the materials themselves?
While I was live-blogging this today, I was tweeting, facebooking (is that a verb now?) and blogging all at once. I just got snippets. The best summary I’ve seen is from Aaron Armstrong who blogs at “Blogging Theologically.” He has an excellent summary of the events – he must type really fast.
http://www.bloggingtheologically.com/
Yes, facebooking has entered as a verb. We’re destroying the language of Shakespeare, but such is life these days.
Thanks Dave—yep, I do type really fast 🙂
Great to meet you the other day; keep in touch!
I’d really like to see someone take the challenge!
Here’s my challenge. Can anyone find anything anyone said on the webcast today or in the sample lessons that are available online that buttresses suspicions that this is a Calvinist indoctrination tool?
This Arminian says no!
I got a sneak peak at some of the material of the Gospel Project on-line and connected with Trevin Wax about it on Facebook when some bloggers were drawing up suspicion. (These same bloggers denounced others for prejudging Rob Bell’s book before it came out but then did the exact same thing with regard to the Gospel Project. I would so love to name names. But I digress.)
I listened and enjoyed and was ministered to by both Matt Chandler and J.D. Greer’s messages (I wasn’t able to stick around for Ed Stetzer’s message). I was Amening every bit of it, tweeting and facebooking quotes as well. Did I mention that I’m an Arminian? Okay. Thank you.
Thanks.
“These same bloggers denounced others for prejudging Rob Bell’s book before it came out but then did the exact same thing with regard to the Gospel Project.”
Excellent, excellent point.
William: I truly hope there are more out there like you. I should be more like you. 🙂
William,
Thank you for pointing out that important fact. That should be a wake up for some…maybe…probably not.
One can always hope.
SG!
Dave,
Glad you were here today.
It was a great day. I can’t believe that so many watched– trending #2 in the world on Twitter. That’s crazy, but indicative of the interest in the curriculum. It will be a great tool for churches.
We are excited about it– glad you are as well.
Of course, I DO have an agenda in the curriculum. It’s the same one that has been in all the books that bear my name– encouraging God’s people to go deep and get on mission.
Thanks for coming to NashVegas.
God bless,
Ed
is it true that, in order to know more about the Gospel Project, you have to join in some way formally . . .
or
is there, as of today, some information that is open to the public concerning something specific in the core curriculum, lesson plans, and references used?
The “join the pilot project” is this:
Put your email in the box. It was actually harder for me to join an NCAA Tournament Bracket pool than it was to access the first month of The Gospel Project.
Ed: Thank you for the direction these lessons are going. Thank you for the work you and this team have done.
I have an agenda, as well. My agenda is for people to be saved, and grow deep in their faith, to hold to sound doctrine, and for us to win people to Christ all over the world. That is my agenda.
David
Can’t get any better agenda than that David.
Dave,
Unfortunately I missed it. I was tied up in faculty meetings all afternoon. Bummer.
I read you said there are some samples for view. Are these the ones that have been up on TGP site for a month or better now? Or are there more? I apologize if I missed the link. Today has been beyond hectic. Thanks.
Jim G.
I also have been looking for samples today. And I could use some help finding them.
If you go to the upper-right hand of gospelproject.com you’ll see Join the Pilot Project. Put in your info and you get free access to the first four lessons across all age groups.
What is the Pilot Project, and what are the expectations of people who ‘join’?
actually, I did click following your advice,
and a lot of information is requested . . . so it appears that the ‘free information’ is not without some sharing of personal info . . .
looks like what is ‘free’ is there for people who will possibly be using it in their Churches, rather than for the perusal of those who just wish to observe the materials
but thank you for the info . . . it was kind of you to try to help 🙂
DaveMiller7,
Thank you for being available to personally report on this webcast and the interactions you had with various people. Always good to get first-hand information.
SG!
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 examples.
1. In lesson 1 (on page 14 – all pages are from the Adult Leader Guide), there are some quotes like “God is not accountable to us; we are accountable to Him. God would have been fully just and righteous to create this world and leave it to natural processes, never to intervene, never to communicate with His human creatures, and never to involve Himself with our human plight. There is nothing about our existence that forces God to be a God who reveals Himself.”
This is not a false statement, of course, but it is one-sided. God may have been “fully just and righteous” to leave us alone, but it would have been against his character. The God who is love cannot help but intervene. To be a well-balanced curriculum, both truths need to be emphasized equally. In my opinion, the Reformed tradition is where it is by overemphasizing the former while comparatively ignoring the latter. I see this imbalance occurring in lesson 1 already.
2. Similar to (1.) above, on page 14 is the quote “God was under no obligation to speak the world into existence.” Of course this statement is not untrue either, but it is a misplaced emphasis. “Obligation” is not what creation is about. When we enter the world of discussing obligations, we have left the world of other-centered interpersonal relationships and entered the logic of the accounting office. We know that a relationship is on the skids when we begin discussing the presence or lack of obligations. Obligations do not define relationships between humans or between humans and God. The Law is an obligation. Love God and love others is the real foundation of that obligation, and therefore goes deeper.
3. Similar to 1. and 2., the quote “God was under no obligation to pull back the curtain and let us see aspects of His character and evidences of His power. He could have spoken the world into existence and then never spoken again, leaving us in ignorance about our Creator and our purpose.” (on page 14) misrepresents the character of God. Because God is a triune God of love, I submit he COULD NOT have left his creation alone, because he is who he is.
4. Once this imbalance of the character of God has been established, it may remain out of balance throughout. This is the reason for my qualified endorsement.
5. On page 32 of lesson 3, here is the following question: “Do you agree with the statement ‘In all God does, His first aim is to glorify Himself’? Why or why not? What are some ways that God’s glorifying Himself is a benefit to us?” This statement needs more unpacking. What does “glorifying himself” mean? How do we make sure we qualify that statement so that we maintain the balance discussed in 1-4 above? I certainly do not want to take the leap of theistic determinism that “all occurs to glorify God.” I think it is dangerous to leave that quote in that lesson without unpacking it. I would be much more comfortable with seeing the Bible’s own qualifications on God’s glory at this point, without wondering where it is going, given the Edwards-Piper theology present in the circles of the editors and known writers.
These are just my concerns. I certainly applaud the deep thinking on biblical and theological topics. I have some caution that the presuppositions evident in the beginning of the curriculum will lead directly to a Reformed/Augustinian interpretation of topics later on. In other words, I see we are on I-40 and heading east out of Nashville. The chances of us winding up in Little Rock are not good.
Thanks for the opportunity to reply.
Jim G.
1: Facts! I will hopefully get a chance to look at this later, but you are using actual quotes and given how this has turned with others, that’s worth voicing a positive response to. I may not agree with your conclusion–I’m planning on giving the sample month a hard look next week. But at least you’re using the material to evaluate it.
2: Anyone who thinks of heading to Little Rock as a destination is good in my book. 🙂
Hey Doug,
Come to think of it, I don’t recall seeing anyone who is an overwhelming supporter of TGP using actual quotes from the lessons to support their endorsement, either. Maybe that road runs both ways. :0)
Jim G.
It should run both ways. What is it we keep being told? Facts are our friends?
Thanks for the brief review, Jim.
I am wondering how the term “obligation” forces us to leave the world of interpersonal relationships and enter the accounting office. I’m guessing that most of us use “obligation” far more in personal relationships than we do for other more impersonal uses.
I would read the authors’ use of the “God is not obligated…” language as their attempt to highlight his love, rather than an attempt to shroud it or create some kind of imbalance. I don’t see this as something that most non-Reformed people would see as unbiblical. Now, of course, as you point out, they can’t cover everything in one lesson, and you’d have to review more than this one lesson to say the interstate is headed anywhere, I think.
Hi Josh,
I didn’t say it was unbiblical. I said it was unbalanced. The Bible holds two traditions side by side. Both must be emphasized.
Jim G.
Jim G.
Sorry, Josh. Had another thought.
I am qualifying my endorsement (like MY endorsement means anything anyway). I’m not sure where we are heading exactly. I just have honest concerns with what I see and knowing the doctrinal commitments of those involved.
On a better note, though, I was glad to see a pretty well-mixed group of “From Church History” quotes. I saw Patristics (Diodore, Augustine, John of Damascus), Baptists (Spurgeon, Hobbs, Criswell), Presbyterians (A.A. Hodge, Warfield, Bavinck), and various non-Reformed folk (Tozer, Lewis, Fackre). The balance was pretty good, I thought.
Jim G.
Jim,
The breadth of quotation sources was the thing that stood out to me most from my perusal of lesson 1. Especially the Patristics since few Evangelical curriculums wander towards any literature newer than the Apostles or older than Luther.
that should be “curricula”.
Just one quick reply (all I have time for right now).
In your “5”, you seem to equate “all God does” (as the question says) and “all occurs to glorify God” (and call that theistic determinism).
First – even from a non-“reformed’ perspective, I think it could be said that “Everything God does, He does to glorify Himself.” Why else would He do it? Notice it doesn’t give us an indication of what God is doing, just that if He does it, He does it to bring glory to Himself.
I actually think this question has a non-reformed slant because it doesn’t ask “Do you agree with the statement ‘In everything that comes to pass, God’s first aim is to glorify Himself’? Why or why not?”
Thanks!
Jeff
Hi Jeff,
I would say briefly that we must affirm the agency of humans as well as the agency of God. Again, I’m not saying any of TGP is unbiblical – I just see a hint of imbalance.
Remember, I did say “qualified” endorsement with some reservation.
Jim G.
Jim,
Wait a minute…did you say “qualified” endorsement. Now that just doesn’t make sense. You can’t do that. Someone recently said, “to speak of a ‘qualified’ endorsement makes very little sesne [sic]. Either [you] endorsed the book–which means [you] approved the book and encouraged purchase of the book–or [you] didn’t. One doesn’t endorse 75% of a book while not endorsing 25%. To suggest one does, in our view, reduces to nonsense.”
Surely the writer here must be correct. He has said before that he always researches his views extensively. So how could you Jim do something that this writer says is such “nonsense”?
[/sarcasm]
“I’m pickin’ up your sarcasm…”
“Well, I should hope so, because I’m laying it on pretty thick.”
(From “Tommy Boy”)
Unlike your “writer,” D. R, or the one whom he was critiquing in his endorsement of a particular pastor’s book on a particularly sensitive subject, I can’t see all of TGP. Based on what I have seen, I like most of it, but I am wary of where some of the presuppositions might lead. That is the reason for my qualification. If I could see the whole shootin’ match, I’d say yea or nay and plainly say why. Since I only have a month’s worth of lessons to see (out of at least 36 months, I believe), I have to qualify a little.
Jim G.
I understand completely Jim. The reality that said writer fails to understand (even though he is supposed to be a book publisher) is that “qualified” endorsements are pretty common. Were I not banned from his blog for posting a link to a completely innocuous article, I would have posted numerous “qualified” endorsements by theologians for books sitting on my shelf.
So qualify away – it’s most definitely a recognized practice in publishing.
‘curriculum’, by its very nature, will develop a theme by adapting its introduction to the age and abilities of the learners, and increasingly developing the theme on each rung of the spiral, so that the development keeps pace with the growth of abilities of learners.
It would be interesting to see how a particular theme in the new Project is developed along the lines of a curriculum . . . it is only then that you can really see ‘where the authors are going with the material. Snippets of quotes won’t give you that needed overview, nor reveal ‘direction’ of development.
People would need to see a lot more than a few lessons, I think, to give any proper approval or criticism . . . that would be only fair to the authors and to those who might be using the materials.