It is a privilege to talk today with Trevin Wax, the Managing Editor of “The Gospel Project”, a new Sunday School curriculum from LifeWay Christian Resources of the SBC. He has agreed to answer a few questions about The Gospel Project for the readers of SBC Voices. (I think you could probably figure this out, but my questions are in bold and Trevin’s answers are in normal print.)
Trevin, welcome to SBC Voices. Tell us about beginnings of The Gospel Project. How did it come to be?
Thanks for the invitation, Dave.
The Gospel Project is LifeWay’s response to churches asking for a more “in-depth” Bible study curriculum.
I was serving on staff at a church in rural Tennessee when Ed Stetzer (the General Editor of this new curriculum) asked me if I would be interested in helping LifeWay start a new curriculum that was “theologically robust, focused on the grand narrative of Scripture, and missional.” There’s not a lot that would take me away from local church ministry, but the idea of developing a curriculum that would help people connect the dots of the biblical storyline intrigued me. The more I learned about the project, the more excited I became.
So, in November 2010, I moved to middle Tennessee and assumed the role of content editor for this new curriculum. One of the first things we did was bring together an advisory group of leaders whose approach to the Scriptures emphasized the storyline of Scripture and the need for churches to be evangelistically faithful and missionally focused. Then, we mapped out the content for a three-year cycle and got to work on the individual lessons.
At the same time my team at LifeWay was working on this new curriculum for adults, LifeWay was developing similar resources (under different names) for students and children. In November 2011, we decided we should align these like-minded products under one name, The Gospel Project. Since then, I’ve been giving editorial oversight to this exciting new curriculum for all ages.
It’s been quite an undertaking, to say the least! But we are prayerful it will result in more people understanding the Bible and their role as Christ’s ambassadors in the world.
As I understand The Gospel Project, it takes the students through the entire Bible teaching what you call “The Grand Narrative” of the gospel that weaves through the whole Bible. Is that accurate?
The grand narrative of Scripture is a key component, but “Christ-centeredness” is the major aspect, and missional focus is woven throughout.
The paragraph on Scripture in The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 ends with this statement: “All Scripture is a testimony to Jesus Christ, who is Himself the focus of divine revelation.” That phrase – “All Scripture is a testimony to Jesus” – sums up what we are seeking to do here. We are fleshing out what this statement looks like in regards to curriculum. How do we encourage people to study the Bible in a way that shines light on the supremacy of Jesus Christ in all things?
In 1961, W. A. Criswell preached an hours-long sermon on New Year’s Eve called “The Scarlet Thread” in which he showed how the stories of the Bible lead us to the cross. We are driven by this same approach to the Scriptures — one that has a long heritage in Baptist life. (In fact, one of the quarters in the 3-year cycle is called “Atonement Thread.”) The goal is to show how all the stories of the Bible are telling one overarching story of redemption through Jesus Christ.
I remember hearing Billy Graham tell about an occasion early in his ministry when he was disheartened and disappointed after preaching. He wasn’t sure why his sermon hadn’t had the power he expected. A businessman told him, “Billy, you didn’t preach the cross!” Graham said that’s the vital ingredient to every sermon. He never preached again without pointing people to the cross.
Charles Spurgeon is often quoted as saying he’d take a text of Scripture and then make “a beeline to the cross.” This new material might not get to the cross in the exact manner Spurgeon did each week, but we certainly share that desire – to lift up Christ crucified and raised, to make the gospel explicit, since it is the power of God – not only unto salvation, but also the message that grows us in sanctification and discipleship as well.
Church leaders have asked for curriculum that points to Christ every week. God is the primary Actor in the grand narrative of Scripture, and the gospel of Jesus Christ is the climax of this story. We’re approaching the Old Testament in a way that follows the model of Jesus on the road to Emmaus: all the Scriptures testify to Christ. We approach New Testament ethics and commands by seeing them as implications that flow from the gospel announcement of Christ crucified and raised.
What is it that you want to accomplish with The Gospel Project? What are its goals and purposes?
The Gospel Project for Kids takes children on a chronological journey through the Bible, showing how these individual stories point ahead to God’s ultimate plan of redemption through Christ.
The Gospel Project for Students and for Adults is theologically-driven, and by that, we mean it’s structured theologically. The scope and sequence is based loosely on the theological topics covered in A Theology for the Church – a great Baptist systematic theology textbook edited by Danny Akin. So, our goal is to take participants through the basics of systematic and biblical theology, while focusing on the grand narrative of Scripture and our calling to live on mission for the kingdom of Christ.
We’re directing our writers for the adult and student pieces to ask three questions of every lesson they deliver:
- “How does this topic fit into the big story of Scripture?” This question helps them connect the dots for learners to see how doctrine relates to the grand narrative.
- “What is distinctively Christian about the way I am addressing the topic?” This question always leads us back to the good news of salvation through Jesus.
- “How does this truth equip God’s church to live on mission?” This question helps us keep doctrine and Bible study connected to missional application.
When will it roll out? Is it ready to go?
The first quarter is Fall 2012, but it should be available by June. We’re getting close!
Is this a short-term curriculum, long-term, or dated and ongoing?
Each quarter’s material will premiere as dated and ongoing, but a short-term version will follow each release six months later. Churches will be able to use the material in a way that is convenient and flexible for their local context.
I notice that the curriculum is for children, youth and adults. Will each age group study the same topics at their appropriate level? Will families be able to discuss their lessons at home and be talking about the same basic subject matter?
The students and adults will study the same topics and passages each week. The children are on a different track. They are taking a chronological journey through Bible stories, showing how those stories point forward to Christ. There are great parent helps to provide families with the opportunity to have solid conversations about what they’re studying.
Even the term “gospel” has become somewhat controversial in this day. What do you mean by “the gospel”?
At its heart, I define the gospel as the royal announcement that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, lived a perfect life in our place, died a substitutionary death on the cross for the sins of the world, rose triumphantly from the grave to launch God’s new creation, and is now exalted as King of the world. This announcement calls for a response: repentance (mourning over and turning from our sin, trading our agendas for the kingdom agenda of Jesus Christ) and faith (trusting in Christ alone for salvation).
How is this curriculum different than others that Lifeway has produced? All of them have taught the gospel, have they not? What makes The Gospel Project different from other Lifeway products?
Great question! Since I’ve been an editor at LifeWay, my appreciation for the work done on other curriculum lines has only grown. It’s tedious, difficult work. But knowing we are giving church leaders good tools for teaching and discipleship makes it all worthwhile.
The uniqueness of The Gospel Project does not mean other curriculum options are not theological or gospel-focused – any more than calling your congregation Life Baptist Church means that the other churches in town are all dead.
The difference is the starting point, which is “Christ as the focus of all the Scriptures.” Explore the Bible’s focus is on book-by-book Bible study through the whole Bible in 8 years. The Bible Studies for Life series focuses on life application as well as worldview thinking. All of them are theological, and all of them include the gospel, of course. But the starting point for each is different. Those who prefer an expositional, book-by-book approach, for example, may not prefer The Gospel Project. And that’s okay. The various approaches to discipleship should complement one another, not compete with one another.
Okay, let’s get down to the nitty-gritty. There has been some criticism leveled and suspicions have been raised about The Gospel Project because of the Advisory Council that seems to be predominantly Calvinist and includes those who are not Southern Baptist. Is “The Gospel Project” an attempt to indoctrinate Southern Baptists in “the Doctrines of Grace?”
No. When we put together the initial advisory group to give us some initial insight into the scope of topics we should cover, we invited people who were known for emphasizing the Christ-centered nature of the Scriptures. The advisory council is made up of people who think that way (and most were connected with Ed in some way).
But this “Christ-centered” emphasis is not exclusive to Reformed folks. That’s why eight of the eleven council members are Southern Baptist. The other three are Baptist, but not SBC. As far as how many are Reformed or not, I honestly do not know how many points people claim. (I just discovered recently that James MacDonald says he’s a 3.8 Calvinist!) That wasn’t a question or even a topic of conversation that came up in those initial meetings, as far as I can recall. The conversations were about how we could structure this curriculum in a way that points to Christ, not Calvinism.
We think it is great that leaders like D.A. Carson, Matt Chandler, James MacDonald, and Danny Akin would take the time (without compensation) to give us their input in how to shape a curriculum. That’s a dream team for us. They gave us input and we structured the timeline around these ideas.
Are you a Calvinist?
I’m a Christian – Baptist – Amyraldian. In that order. (In fact, I’m thinking of getting a bumper sticker that says “Amyraldian – and loving it!” Just kidding on that one.) I have benefited greatly from Christians across the spectrum. My favorite systematic theologies are Millard Erickson, Wayne Grudem, and A Theology for the Church. When it comes to soteriology, I generally prefer Erickson (which is why I don’t believe regeneration precedes faith, for example).
Were both Calvinists and non-Calvinists involved in the production of this curriculum?
Yes – at least I think so. We’ve never asked anyone if they were Calvinists. We ask them about the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
There’s been an ongoing team of editors and writers. All of them have a track record of missional engagement and Christ-centered teaching and preaching. We’ve even borrowed longtime LifeWay writers from Bible Studies for Life and Explore the Bible. The initial advisory council’s included a mix, as I mentioned earlier, but their role was to give initial feedback on the structure and scope. They don’t have an ongoing role in the development.
There are several non-Southern Baptists involved in the process and some (in the blog world) have expressed concern about that. Why were those not part of our denomination used to produce denominational Sunday School literature?
I don’t believe inviting the input from three respected non-SBC Baptist leaders threatens Baptist identity. If we were bringing in writers from all denominations, then there might be a legitimate concern there, but we are not. Advice on the direction was given by eight Southern Baptists and three other Baptists. It’s hard to get more Baptist than eleven Baptists!
I understand that some people think we should never venture outside our denomination. We see things differently. We are thrilled to hear from people like D.A. Carson and think they have a lot to offer. Carson’s ideas on the storyline of scripture are widely embraced and we used them here. We can learn from folks outside the SBC (even if they only were less than 20% of the advisory council).
Those who (like me) are convictionally Baptist will be excited to see the inclusion of quotes and podcasts from Baptist preachers from today and yesteryear (W.A. Criswell, David Platt, Johnny Hunt, J.D. Greear, Paige Patterson, Charles Spurgeon, Adrian Rogers). But I think they’ll also be happy to see quotes from throughout church history (Augustine, Wesley, Luther, Chrysostom, etc.) and from some non-SBC conservative evangelicals.
Church history is our history too. We can glean insight from others without losing our biblical Baptist distinctives expressed so clearly in the Baptist Faith and Message.
Will the lessons deal with issues from the TULIP acronym? Will we hear about Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement or Irresistible Grace? Will we be discussing controversial issues like “does regeneration precede repentance and conversion?” In other words, will non-Calvinists find issues with this curriculum?
I don’t think so, but it depends on the non-Calvinists. We are not going to bring a doctrinal system to the text, but we do have convictions about the text as Southern Baptists.
For example, last week I heard about a Methodist church that wanted to use The Gospel Project. They asked about the theological distinctives. I told them we were quoting from John Wesley from time to time, and that they would probably like much of the curriculum. But when it came to issues of eternal security or baptism, we would write according to our confessional statement – the Baptist Faith and Message. When you get to issues of theological distinction, you can’t affirm two things at once. So when it comes to issues related to Calvinism or Arminianism or anything in between, we will stick with The Baptist Faith and Message.
So, we really do want Methodists to use the curriculum, but they also need to know that we believe certain things from the scripture– and the Baptist Faith and Message describes what we believe on those issues. On controversial issues, we explain there are multiple approaches to some topics within that confessional framework.
In the end, many people will not prefer this curriculum because it is confessional at the core. For those who are inside our denomination, I think there will be two groups who will not like this curriculum: SBC Calvinists who believe their soteriological system IS the gospel and want to push Calvinism rather than Christ, and anti-Calvinists who think any inclusion of Reformed writers (or someone who once met or even read a Reformed writer) entails a conspiracy or agenda to push a particular view of soteriology. Both of these groups are misguided.
What are you most excited about when it comes to The Gospel Project?
I’m excited about The Gospel Project for Kids because I’ve seen the Bible stories, the videos, and the reinforcement activities. And as a father of two young kids, I know they are going to hear about Jesus every week. They’re going to get more than just “be good” or “be friends” and mere moralizing. They’re going to see how the Bible stories point to Jesus.
I’m excited about The Gospel Project for Students because this curriculum is challenging. When I was a teenager, youth group time often frustrated me because it seemed like the teachers and the curriculum were talking down to us. Teachers at school expected more out of us than teachers at church. This curriculum is challenging, but I believe students will rise to the occasion. They will be introduced to the major themes of the Bible and learn some apologetics along the way.
And I’m excited about The Gospel Project for Adults because of the missional engagement that results from an encounter with the living Christ as He is presented in the Scriptures. I like to say that Bible study alone won’t change your life. The Jewish leaders of Jesus’ day knew the Scriptures backward and forward, but Jesus said they were missing the point. The Scriptures are about Him. This curriculum will help adults connect the dots of the biblical storyline and experience the beauty of God’s grace shown to us in Jesus Christ.
All of these lines are driven by a love for the scriptures and a love for God’s mission. Users will see that throughout. You can imagine that Ed is always pressing us to encourage all God’s people to live on mission, and having that connection is so key. So, in the end, we point people to Jesus and then He sends them on mission. We think this curriculum will be a great help to churches that want to go deeper in scripture and go further on mission.
I appreciate Trevin’s willingness to explain the process, the materials and the goals and purposes of The Gospel Project. I’ve seen some speculation out there, but it is always good to get the facts, first. To be frank, I haven’t been this excited about a LifeWay roll-out in a long time. May Jesus be the center of everything, always, including our Sunday School curriculum!
Great interview Dave! The conspiracy theory should now be over…hopefully.
It’s not a conspiracy, it’s an agenda. 😉
Seriously, this is the first thing in a while that makes me want to consider SBC material once more.
Oh yea… one nice little interview and we are all ready to “turn our weapons into plowshares” and cozy up to one another and sing kumbayah. Sorry; Not quite there yet.
><>”
Bob,
What else will it take for you? Trevin answered Dave’s questions pretty plainly. Why can’t you take him at his word at least until you read the material and see if it lines up with what he has said about it?
Jason,
Glad you asked your question. I will be glad to answer your question and I am glad to respond directly to Trevin’s comments instead of being accused of fabricating thoughts on my own. My response here is short. I have a full response posted SBC Issues.
Joe, make no mistake about it, “manning up is no problem on my part.”
I want to comment on a few choice comments Trevin makes.
Statement #1… “How do we encourage people to study the Bible in a way that shines light on the supremacy of Jesus Christ in all things?” Supremacy as in soteriology and conversion, which are the heart and soul of Reformed Theology and we can expect this select group of writers to “go soft on unconditional election and irresistible grace?” I would not expect anything of the sort from this group.
Statement #2, “We are driven by this same approach to the Scriptures — one that has a long heritage in Baptist life.” Given the strong historical underpinnings of Reformed Theology in the storied history of the SBC and the only more recent shameful move away from it, I would certainly expect to hear more from some guys than others. Hey, history is history, right? Ask the Jews about the historicity of the Holocaust.
Statement #3, “(In fact, one of the quarters in the 3-year cycle is called “Atonement Thread.”) The goal is to show how all the stories of the Bible are telling one overarching story of redemption through Jesus Christ.” The interesting focus here is the “one overarching story of redemption”. Let’s see, reservations go up or go down?
To see responses to statements 4-10 go to My response here is short. I have a full response posted at SBC Issues.
Statement #11, Response to the question, will we hear about the TULIP, regeneration etc, Trevin;s response, “I don’t think so, but it depends on the non-Calvinists. We are not going to bring a doctrinal system to the text, but we do have convictions about the text as Southern Baptists.”; In otherwords, while the terms are left off, the concepts are no doubt there. My contention all along has been, I would expect no less from these individuals who have both the responsibility and obligation to themselves and to the God they serve to write from the depths of their hearts and conviction. I would be sorely disappointed if they did not.
Trevin says, “Both of these groups are misguided.” One may not be as misguided as Trevin thinks.
Once final comment for Trevin. I have suggested and will continue to do so, the following simple solution to this whole issue. Name the project, “The Gospel Project: A Reformed Perspective.” Perspective is certainly fair and is not necessarily suggesting that it is “fully reformed” if your contention is that it is not. Most of the folks that I have talked with would be relatively satisfied with that modification in the title.
Here is why I believe it is fair and responsible on Lifeway’s part. If the demand was to produce a piece with this theological leaning, then identify it as such so those looking for it till know that is what it is. The only possible objection would be, it will not sell. If that is the case, then it ought not sell. It would be highly unethical for Lifeway to intentionally sell a program to churches that do not want a Reformed perspective in their literature. While I know that has already been done to some degree, this move is unprecedented in Lifeway’s history. Lifeway is aware of the relationship SB churches have with it and they are also aware of the connotations the phrase, “The Gospel Project” will garner in the marketplace. Seems to me the Reformed effort to “hijack” the term gospel is similar to their doing the same thing with grace. It is a highly effective move and will continue to be so.
Lifeway’s refusal to market this project for what it is will only lend to the argument that this project has been produced to help reformed pastors who go to pastor non-Reformed churches do the tough work of reformation. That is a fact and once again, everyone knows the stakes. I implore you to do the right thing and convince Lifeway to correctly label this project that you all ought to be proud of and do not cheapen its impact by refusing to label it for what it is.
><>”
Bob,
Thank you for your reply. I’ll admit that I have done very little interacting here or on any blog so to correspond with you is a little intimidating since I am not a pastor, theologian, etc. I’m just a regular ole’ Baptist church member in a relatively normal sized First Baptist Church in a relatively medium sized town. However, I do disagree with what you seem to be reading into Trevin’s words.
1. You hear “supremacy of Jesus Christ in all things”, and you immediately think “supremacy as in soteriology and conversion”. I just think of the preeminence of Christ in a Colossians 1: 15 – 20 sort of way, especially verse 18.
2. “This same approach to Scripture” merely refers to the approach Trevin mentioned throughout the entire interview – seeing all Scripture point to Christ. Nothing more, nothing less.
3. “One overarching story of redemption” makes reservations neither go up nor down because like #2, it means seeing all Scripture point to Christ.
Forgive me for not going over to the other blog to respond to the remaining points. Since I’m relatively new at this, I’d rather not confuse things between multiple blogs. Plus, I really do believe you’re reading Trevins words in a way that seems to say he doesn’t really mean what he says he means. I hope you understand.
“Lifeway’s refusal to market this project for what it is”
Correction: Lifeway’s refusal to market this project for what you say it is. This is in the face of the definite statements to the contrary by the editor of this material. So either you are wrong or Wax is being deceptive.
Bill, spot on.
At least man up and acknowledge that when Dave asked him what the gospel is that the answer he gave is the gospel.
Bob: In your opinion ,how many Calvinists are acceptable on a project like this, and how many points of Calvinism are acceptable?
Bill Mac,
If it’d been half 4 and 5 pointers, and half non-Calvinists, and if it’d been the same with the writers….say, have Bart Barber write a series…then, have Dr. Russell Moore write a series….waaa laaaa, Brother. That would’ve worked, I bet’cha.
David
Sorry, David. They did it for free. I may not be a Calvinist, but I’m a Capitalist.
😉
Bart,
I kind of figured you werent a communist! 🙂
David
Awesome! This is fantastic news.
Great interview, Dave. I appreciate not only your willingness to ask some of the questions raised in the blogosphere, but also Trevin’s answers.
At its heart, I define the gospel as the royal announcement that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, lived a perfect life in our place, died a substitutionary death on the cross for the sins of the world, rose triumphantly from the grave to launch God’s new creation, and is now exalted as King of the world. This announcement calls for a response: repentance (mourning over and turning from our sin, trading our agendas for the kingdom agenda of Jesus Christ) and faith (trusting in Christ alone for salvation).
A clear, accurate explanation of the gospel that anyone who claims to be a Christian should be able to affirm, no matter if they are Calvinist, non-Calvinist, or anti-Calvinist.
Fantastic interview. Now with this out in the open and questions answered, maybe folks will get off their theological high horse and see TGP for what it really is: a good product that is long overdue.
Thank you Trevin and LifeWay
Appreciate this detailed and straightforward interview, Dave and Trevin. This answers a lot of concerns that have been raised and I’m anxious to see the material now. SBC has needed an in depth curriculum for a long time. Thanks again Dave.
1. I still dont see the need for another curriculum. The one we have now is Bible Centered, Gospel centered, Theologically sound and good. So, why the need for this one??? I really dont see it. UNLESS, you feel the other ones are flawed in some way.
2. We’re gonna have people, who are not SB’s contributing to this? Really? Why? When we have so many SB’s, who are theologically sound, and have strong Baptist convictions, would we ever invite people from other denominations to “give guidance” for our Bible Study materials???? Wow.
3. Why are most of the people listed as advisors and contributors 4 or 5 pt. Calvinists? I mean, seriously, why? It really does make people wonder about this? Especially when it’s called a Gospel centered project…and theologically in depth….as if the other one isnt?
Hey, if Lifeway wants to do this, that’s up to them. But, there’s gonna be a lot of people seeing this as a move to bring more “reform” to the SBC. I’m sorry. Spin it anyway you like…but, it will.
Let’s see….I wonder what a bunch of people would think if Lifeway had a new, SS, Bible study series come out, which was called “The Baptist Way, The Christian Way?” And, on the advisory council, was David Allan, Steve Lemke, Bart Barber, Dr. Paige Patterson, Wes Kenney, and Robin Foster? And, they were gonna write most of the lessons, along with Dr. Malcolm Yarnell, and Dr. Chuck Kelly, and Dr. Emir Caner, and Tim Rogers? I wonder what the outcry would be? I wonder what accusations would fly then?
lol
David
PS. I love everybody. I’m not angry. I’m not trying to be mean and nasty. And, I’m certainly not trying to be a “Yes Man.”
Volfan,
The cry would be, Baptist Identity.
Dwight,
Yep. And, I’m sure that some people would be red faced mad that Lifeway would make their SS curriculum like this; dont you? Honestly, Dwight, dont you think there’d be an outcry from certain people?
David
Instead of focusing on what if, why don’t we focus on what LifeWay has done with TGP and how Trevin has tried to directly answer the questions surrounding the so-called “Calvinist” controversy about it?
David,
I’m not tracking your argument. It sounds to me like you are saying, “If we did a curriculum you’d be mad too. Therefore, we are justified in being mad”. So, would “we” (whoever “we” are) be right in being mad if you did a “Baptist Identity–or something like that–type of curriculum? If yes, why? If no, then I don’t see why what you are saying matters.
Mike,
I’m not mad.
I am saying that people are asking honest, serious questions about this new curriculum; and their suspicions and questions shouldnt be passed off as “Well, here’s goes the anti-Calvinist Conspiracy Nuts again!”
Also, I’m just stating the obvious, if the shoe was on the other foot….if my hypothetically new material was being introduced…then what would you think about it? What would others be saying about it? When you read the advisors and counselors and writers; what do you honestly think someone would think about this “new” stuff?
David
What I’m wondering though is why you are framing it the way you are. You are pitting those on the “other side” as being red faced mad. But those on “your side” are “asking honest, serious questions about this new curriculum”. I’m just not following why this is a necessary part of your argument.
For me it would depend on the intention of the material. If their aim is to push their agenda, then I’d probably steer clear. Mostly because at the end of the day I’m going to disagree with their agenda. But if these men are teaching on things that are not related to their BI distinctives then I’d look the material over and see if it would be of use. Of course we all know it wouldn’t because my main goal in life is to honor JC–by that I mean John Calvin. LOL.
Honestly, it sounds to me like they are indebted to D.A. Carson NSBT series. That’s probably why he is on the advisory council. The men that they’ve asked are those that have shown themselves to be faithful in presenting the gospel message and Scriptures from a Christ-centered perspective. I believe Trevin when he says “Calvinism” wasn’t really an issue.
David:
I think it would be perceived as you’ve perceived this curriculum effort: suspiciously. I think that’s a fair comment and deserves an honest response.
I’ve been in churches that had groups that supported the old Bible Book Series and groups that flat out refused to use it in favor of old Life and Work. (We luckily didn’t have a third group that preferred the old Uniform series!!) We had a Minister of Education and he and I (as SS Director) split the teacher preparation of the two groups.
I’ll note that at the time I strongly preferred the Bible Book Series, so it was disappointing to me to be asked to prepare the Life and Work teachers. But I respected them as believers and as friends–one of them was the very first person I contacted in Aggieland in order to discuss how to work out details of a scholarship I was offered by the school–and it was a joy to work with them that year.
I think there is room for a more theologically intense Sunday School material, particularly if it can accomplish sort of what we saw Jesus doing on the road to Emmaus with the two disciples he spoke to. We think he explained the grand narrative and how the many individual prophecies were fulfilled in his life and therefore how that proved not just that he was a “nice guy” but something far more. It was, if you will, the first half of the CS Lewis argument that Jesus cannot make the claims he made and be just a wise man. He’s either a lunatic–I think Lewis said “on the order of someone claiming to be a boiled egg”–or something worse.
Now that said, and I hope Trevin is reading these comments: eternal security of the believer in traditional, mainstream Southern Baptist terms is NOT THE SAME AS PERSEVERANCE OF THE SAINTS. And if perserverance of the saints is discussed, the semantic distinction between the two needs to be made. Believer’s baptism is differentiated from infant baptism by a similar semantic distinction. And Southern Baptists need to clearly reaffirm believer’s baptism instead of infant baptism in this series.
But I’m a fan of the doctrines of grace and the viewpoint that God is sovereign and “chooses who he chooses” is Biblical.
I honestly wonder if you guys read the interview. Trevin clearly wrote the words “eternal security” and “baptism”. He said repeatedly the words Baptist Faith and Message.
No contributors have been mentioned in this article, so how do you know how many are Calvinists? He clearly said contributors would asked about the BFM, not Calvinism. The people mentioned are on the advisory council. And how many points of Calvinism must someone reject before you judge them suitable for inclusion? Obviously less than 4. Is 3 ok? Which points do they need to reject? I’m beginning to think only 1 pointers will be suitable for anything in the SBC.
The guy says the curriculum is not Calvinistic and that it is not part of a Calvinist agenda, and you still don’t buy it. So either you think he is lying or he has been deceived himself.
Trevin clearly said that wasn’t the case.
I knew this wouldn’t end the conspiracy/agenda theories. I wonder what it will take.
Bill Mac,
In all honesty, what would some people in the SBC be saying if the above curriculum that I mentioned…my hypothetical SS curriculum…was coming out of Lifeway? Honestly…
David
David:
There is a difference between the conclusions people jump to and reality. The list you mentioned, with the exception of the name Caner, wouldn’t elicit much response from me, especially if one of them took the time to explain the curriculum and allay any misconceptions people might have. I honestly don’t associate all those people with the short lived BI movement.
What will it take, honestly, to convince you that this material is OK?
Lifeway has constantly introduced new curriculum through the years. Sunday School literature changes all the time. I do not think they are doing away with any other literature, just adding another track.
Do you really believe that only those in the SBC are qualified to speak to the SBC? There are a lot of non-Southern Baptists we can learn from.
One thing I would encourage is that people actually examine the literature before we make assumptions.
“One thing I would encourage is that people actually examine the literature before we make assumptions.”
good advice
here are a few ‘samples’ to examine:
http://gospelproject.com/
If Lifeway wrote the curriculum you mentioned above, people would be free to use it or not use it. The fact that I might not be enthusiastic about it or that I might not use it does not mean it should not be produced.
Dave,
Of course, we can learn from people outside of the SBC. I do all the tiime. But, this is Southern Baptist Sunday School lessons. Can we not find people, who are theologically qualified to write lessons for OUR people? Why go outside? Seriously, why the need, or why would some feel the need, to go outside? for OUR SS lessons?
Dont you find that a little bit curious? I do.
David
PS. once again, I most certainly learn from J. Vernon McGee, John McArthur, etc. In my personal Bible study, yes, of course I do. But, I’d really have a hard time with someone, who’s not a SB, writinig SB literature for our churches….lol.
This to me is like saying that we want people in our churches to be Baptist first and Christians second. Of course if they gave R.C. Sproul a session on baptism then I’d question the wisdom of getting “outsiders” to teach on Baptist distinctives. But when we are getting other Baptists even teaching on gospel issues not related to necessarily Baptist distinctives I don’t see why they must be Southern Baptists. Sorry for throwing around the term but it sounds a little elitist.
Mike,
I’d also find it a little bit this side of silly for SB’s to be writing SS lessons for the Methodists, or the Presbyterians, or the Assembly of God. Now, I’d be all for it, but I’d think that was just a little bit silly for them to have us writing their literature…to be taught to their people. Unless, they were wanting to become more Baptist in their theology…which would be fine and dandy to me.
I’m a Christian, first and foremost, Mike. And, I’m a Baptist second…but, I am the Baptist flavor of Christianity, because I beleive that Baptist stick most closely to the Bible. I dont want to be more Presbyterian, or Methodists, or Assembly of God. I wanna Baptist(Christian) doctrine to be taught to my people. I wanna be able to buy Christian-Baptist material from Lifeway; not Presbyterian.
David
I’m actually encouraged that Methodists or Presbyterians or AG want to use the curriculum. I’m encouraged by some of the similarities to the First Great Awakening. I’m excited when the gospel is being promoted more than our distinctives. Of course we have these–and they are important.
Mike,
Maybe you missed the part where I said that I’d be thrilled, tickled to death, if the Methodists, and the Presbyterians, and the Assembly of God wanted to use our material and become more sound in their doctrine(Baptist distinctives). I’d be thrilled if they adopted our BFM 2K.
But, I still think that they’re just this side of silly for using our literature, IF they’re committed to being Methodists, Presbyterians, etc, etc, etc. And, I think that we’re being just this side of silly for using people, who arent SB’s, to produce OUR literature. I dont want Lifeway to produce literature by non-SB’s. I’m scratching my head right now.
David
My comment wasn’t necessarily in disagreement.
So even if it’s on something that isn’t necessarily “Southern Baptist”? D.A. Carson is perhaps the best–and most irenic and reasonable-scholar of our day…he just isn’t SBC. Saying we don’t want Carson b/c he isn’t SBC I don’t get.
Didn’t Trevin say that everyone on this board was Baptist? Did I miss something. It’s just that 3 of them aren’t Southern Baptist. So I’m wondering that SB distinctive might be in peril that we wouldn’t consider the advice of non-Southern Baptist baptists.
Bill Mac, that is how I understood it. Everyone was Baptist, but three are not Southern Baptist.
All were in theological agreement with the BF&M 2000.
Dave and Trevin,
Excellent interview. Both the questions and answers were outstanding.
I do think the interview answered the suspicions of those who think there is some sort of Calvinist agenda. It seems now that all one can do is wait to see the final product and then compare it to what the perceptions are. “What ifs” and hypotheticals really continue the “agenda” meme.
Btw (Dave you’ll have to push this through moderation): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism
And, as a follow-up, this should cast some light on Amyraldism, in reference specifically to do with ‘atonement’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Grotius#Governmental_theory_of_atonement
If anything, when comparing Trevin’s answers to the various conspiracy theories floating around in the blogosphere concerning The Gospel Project, we all should learn that you must read the curriculum before you comment on the content.
David, if the curriculum you hypothetically mentioned above was coming out, I would read it before I critiqued it.
Jared,
You probably would. I think that many others would not, and they’d be honestly questioning what this material was all about. AND, they’d be right in thinking that Lifeway might have some sort of an agenda in mind….with such a line up as the one I proposed.
Jared, if you’re really up on who these men are, and what they’ve stood for in the past, then what would be the first thing that came to your mind if such a curriculum came out? What do you think would be on all the bloggers and others, who didnt like the BI crowd? And, do you think that some people might even be a little upset that such a curriculum was being sponsered by Lifeway? to influence future generations of SBC Churches? Seriously?
David
David, if someone has integrity, they’ll seek to accurately represent their brothers and sisters in Christ. How can this be done without reading the content before accusations are made?
Jared,
I honestly hope that this new material from Lifeway is really good, sound stuff. I really do.
I also dont think it’s far fetched, or crazy, or fanatical, or mean-nasty-bad for some people, including myself, to wonder about it…to have suspicions about it….to wonder why? to ask questions?
Do you?
David
But I would say that your first comment is the key. Look at the material. If Lifeway produces a quality, Christ-centered, theologically deep, Baptist SS curriculum that helps people see the flow of the gospel story from Genesis to Revelation, that will be a good thing.
And if a couple of non-SBs were involved, if the material focuses on the gospel, not on so-called Calvinist doctrine, we can all rejoice.
My hope is that people will not pre-judge the Project, but wait until it comes out, review the material on its merits and decide whether it is helpful to the church.
David, asking questions is fine. Levying accusations is not. Rogers, Lumpkins, and Hadley have levied accusations. Accusations that they cannot prove because they have not read the content of The Gospel Project. When the curriculum comes out, all of these men may agree with everything in the curriculum. You may agree with everything in the curriculum. At the very least, all of us should seek to represent the content of The Gospel Project accurately. We owe this to our brothers and sisters in Christ. The only way to represent The Gospel Project accurately is to read it, and then respond.
I would much rather discuss Trevin’s interview and the purposes and goals of TGP than to rehash what others might have said about it.
We’ve walked down that lane more than once and it never seems to end in a good place.
Specifically, Vol, I think asking questions is good. When that becomes a problem is when people make assumptions without facts and make accusations based on those assumptions.
For clarity, I do not think you have done this. I do not agree with your questions, but you have the right to ask such questions.
I think Trevin answered your questions well, but ultimately, the test is whether the material is good.
Bill Mac hits the nail on the head above. Trevin Wax states several times that everything is based on the Baptist Faith and Message. I thought that was the primary thing that mattered for Southern Baptists.
An answer to Volfan007 on his hypothetical comparisson:
This is from the orginal interview (emphasis obviously mine):
Thanks for all of the hard work that has gone – and will go – into this curriculum. I have looked over the sample materials and I am very excited about it. We will make this material available to our teaching staff. They are free to use any LifeWay curriculum, as well as a few others, but I will be encouraging them to seriously consider using “The Gospel Project”.
Lanny,
Well, I guess you get the gold star. 🙂
Bro., may I ask your persuasion about soteriology? Are you a Calvinist?
Just curious.
David
Calvinistic, Premillenarian, Baptist, Christ-follower…
So, Lanny, would you recommend this curriculum to the Churches in your Association?
I am no longer serving as a DOM. I am recommending this material to the teachers I serve as Pastor. God bless you brother.
To be honest, you guys that are still criticizing this after such forthright answers from Trevin just look petty. I think it’s sad that anything that has a touch of Calvinism surrounding it is roundly criticized and put in suspicion, yet if a Calvinist does the same thing, then he’s maligned. It’s out and out hypocrisy – pure and simple.
As for those who criticize non-SBC’s having anything to do with LifeWay material – I’d love to know why none of you have ever been so enthusiastically against Barry McCarty as the SBC’s Chief Parliamentarian. And he actually gets paid for his services! Why no outrage that we have plenty of qualified individuals in the SBC who could be Chief Parliamentarian, why do we need a Disciples of Christ pastor? He’s not even a Baptist – OH THE INSANITY!!!
Be sure to bring that one up in June at the SBC – I’d love to hear the rain of boos coming down on your head for that. Of course, I can already hear the objections about how it’s not the same thing. Unfortunately, there’s little difference.
McCarty does a good job at helping the business meeting flow smoothly. He’s not teaching our people doctrine. I would not want him writing lessons for our SS material, either. Would you, DR?
Also, I’m sure that we do have people, who are qualified to do what he does. I’m not sure why we chose to have him. I think it might’ve been back in the day when liberals/moderates were still around, and we got somebody from the outside in order to be more fair. I’m not sure, but I think that’s it.
David
David,
You do realize that LifeWay has hired editors (specifically Trevin and Stetzer) who have the final say about the material, right? So the idea that these non-Southern Baptists (who by the way, Trevin made explicit WEREN’T WRITING THE MATERIAL – why do you keep ignoring that fact?) are teaching doctrine is a moot point. They couldn’t teach anything that isn’t edited by hired LifeWay employees. And even if they did write the material, you do realize that LifeWay publishes literally dozens of non-SBC materials in the form of Bible studies, right? And B&H has probably more than a hundred non-SBC authors who they publish? So this sort of antiquated Baptist xenophobia was pretty much abandoned years ago. So it again looks a little petty now.
As for the non-SBC’s and doctrine, let’s take D.A. Carson for instance. There really is absolutely NO ONE in the SBC who is more qualified than him on matters of the fulfillment of the OT in Christ. He is the leading Evangelical scholar. And he hasn’t just written “the book” on it, he’s also edited dozens of more on the same concept. No one else in the SBC has done anything close to that. We should be excited to have someone of his worldwide scholarly repute advising us – not whining about not having a Southern Baptist do it. That’s just silly.
Finally, McCarty came in 1986 – well into the CR and he is selected by the presiding President of the SBC (see the bylaws of the SBC for more info). So he was first selected by Adrian Rogers, who I don’t even think you could spin to be a moderate. And he has been reselected every year by a host of other conservatives – not liberals or moderates, despite your uninformed suggestion.
DR,
Why do you sound so angry?
Also, Dr. Rogers is one of my heroes in the faith, Brother. I’m not arguing that McCarty doesnt do a fine job. And, I know that he was called upon by conservatives to do it. I’m not really sure why you’re even saying the things you’re saying to me. They make no sense. lol
Also, need I remind you, DR, that Lifeway has also sold “The Shack,” and it has sold other people’s books and materials that were very questionable, until people complained.
David
David,
You’re deflecting by suggesting I’m angry (by the way, you might want to look in the mirror on that one) and that I wrote the comments about McCarty without context. You were the one who tried to tie McCarty to moderates and liberals, not me. I just showed how silly that line of thought was.
And what exactly does “The Shack” have to do with this conversation. Man, you are really grasping at straws. You just need to admit how silly all of this is and move on.
DR,
I did not try to tie McCarty to liberals and moderates. I know that a conservative brought him in. I couldnt remember exactly who it was. You say that it was Dr. Adrian Rogers. Amen, I love Dr. Rogers. But, I was just thinking that maybe he was brought in to show that there was no favoritism being shown…I dont know…but, maybe? to show the liberal/moderate crowd that the conservatives didnt have one of our own up there being unfair….I’m not sure, but that’s what I was just thinking.
Soooooooo…………
And, about “The Shack”….well, I’m just trying to say that Lifeway has shown some pretty bad judgment in the past about what they’ll allow to be sold….and, didnt Osteen’s and Joyce Meyer’s books get on the shelves of Lifeway, until a barrage of complainst took them off….sooooo…
David
@David (volfan):
Do you believe that Trevin Wax is lying, misleading people or being otherwise willfully dishonest in this case? If so, what precludes you from openly admitting it?
@David (volfan):
Another way of putting it: if you believe that Trevin Wax is lying, if you do not trust Wax any more than you would a politician or used car salesman, why not just say so and be done with it?
Job,
I’m not saying that I dont trust Trevin. I dont even know Trevin.
All I’m saying is that the make up of this new material, with the claims of being “Gospel centered and theologically in depth, etc” as if what we have now is not, plus the advisors, etc. would cause people to wonder about it, and to ask questions. And, we shouldnt be insinuating that people who are asking the questions are somehow “nut job, conspiracy wack-o’s; or just flaming anti-Calvinists, who are divisive and mean;” which seems to be what’s happening.
So, Job, no, I’m not saying anything about Trevin. He might be the finest person in all of the SBC for all I know.
David
David,
Did you not read the part of the interview regarding the “make up of the new material” compared to what we have now.
Trevin said: “The uniqueness of The Gospel Project does not mean other curriculum options are not theological or gospel-focused – any more than calling your congregation Life Baptist Church means that the other churches in town are all dead.
The difference is the starting point, which is “Christ as the focus of all the Scriptures.” Explore the Bible’s focus is on book-by-book Bible study through the whole Bible in 8 years. The Bible Studies for Life series focuses on life application as well as worldview thinking. All of them are theological, and all of them include the gospel, of course. But the starting point for each is different. Those who prefer an expositional, book-by-book approach, for example, may not prefer The Gospel Project. And that’s okay. The various approaches to discipleship should complement one another, not compete with one another.”
He clarified that offering The Gospel Project doesn’t mean that the other LifeWay materials aren’t theological or gospel-centered. He addressed your very concern of “claims of being “Gospel centered and theologically in depth, etc” as if what we have now is not”. Why is that not good enough for you?
“All I’m saying is that the make up of this new material, with the claims of being “Gospel centered and theologically in depth, etc” as if what we have now is not”
That is a fallacy and you know it. First off, Lifeway NEVER DENIED the merits of the existing material. Second, issuing new materials is common, routine work for Lifeway and organizations like them. Otherwise, we’d be using the same materials from the 1700s. (Actually, I wouldn’t have a problem with that, as Lifeway wouldn’t be selling books from modalists and/or prosperity Pentecostals like T.D. Jakes and John Hagee if they were, but somehow I don’t believe that such is your preference.)
“plus the advisors, etc. would cause people to wonder about it, and to ask questions.”
Now I am willing to bet that the materials that you wish that we had never “abandoned” in favor of this one (and I used quotation marks for abandoned because it is not REALLY being abandoned, it will still be available for whoever wants it, making that whole angle a red herring) also had contributions by non-SBCers. Am I right or am I wrong? And even if I am wrong, since when did the SBC become this fundamentalist organization that does not work with outside groups? Should such non-cooperation be a general policy, or is it only applicable to this case? For example: are ALL the faculty at NOBTS Southern Baptists? And should Southern Baptist churches ONLY hire pastors and staff that are products of SBC seminaries? (No such rule exists today; should it?) Now had the contributors to this effort been Anglican or Presbyterian, you would have a case. But since they are all Baptist conservative evangelical, it appears that you are merely seeking an occasion to take an offense or make an accusation against this effort and the people behind it.
“would cause people to wonder about it, and to ask questions”
The problem is not your asking questions. The problem is your refusal to accept the answers. (I should have led with this, or made this the sole point of my reply, as I do not wish for the other points that I have addressed to be used as a reason to ignore this one.) Because Trevin Wax is a Calvinist and because you suspect that Wax is attempting to stealthily impose a Calvinist agenda on the SBC through his position at Lifeway, there is no answer that Wax can give you that would satisfy you.
“And, we shouldnt be insinuating that people who are asking the questions are somehow “nut job, conspiracy wack-o’s; or just flaming anti-Calvinists, who are divisive and mean;” which seems to be what’s happening.”
Pardon me, but how is that any different from calling Wax a liar? Because whether you want to openly admit it or not, that is what you are doing. When you “ask these questions” and refuse to accept the answers, you are calling the one providing the answers a liar. And that goes back to your “why issue new materials at all unless there was something wrong with the old one” canard. If it were a non-Calvinist issuing the new materials, you’d be fine with it. Since it isn’t, you fear that Wax is trying to “reform the SBC” and would really prefer that Wax just, you know, NOT DO HIS JOB. And when Wax answers your questions, you refuse to accept the answers, and then play the victim when challenged on your asking the same questions over and over again.
The truth is that your only “question” is Wax leading Lifeway, and the only “answer” will him being replaced by someone who adheres to your own doctrinal system. Of course, the only way to make this position of yours tenable, logically consistent if you will, is to maintain the stance that Wax is lying to you when he claims that Lifeway is fully capable of issuing new materials (as it did all the time before Wax was there) and receiving contributions from non-SBCers (again, which was very common at Lifeway before Wax and also is the case at other SBC institutions) without it being part of some conspiracy to brainwash the SBC.
I say without equivocation that your “I am only asking questions and should be allowed to without being attacked” stance is dishonest. The honest position would be admitting the truth: Wax has answered my questions and I do not believe the answers and as a result Wax is lying.
What you are indulging in is a common tactic in propaganda, which is accusing someone else of dishonesty in a manner where you avoid being held accountable for making those accusations. Were you to plainly accuse Wax of lying, then you would have to be held accountable for calling him a liar. So, instead you resort to “all I am doing is asking questions”, knowing full well that no answer to those questions will satisfy you, and that you plan to keep asking them over and over again until everyone – or at least enough people – share the same “doubts” that you do. I hear people using those tactics on talk radio (both conservative and liberal) all the time, and that is just one example.
Pretending to be “merely asking questions” from someone whose answers you will never accept is not a suitable behavior for a Southern Baptist. Plainly stating your thoughts concerning Wax and whatever agenda you feel that he represents is.
Job,
You’re not the Holy Spirit. You dont know my heart. You have no right nor authority to say to me what you’ve said. I am not calling Trevin Wax a liar. No where have I said that. I dont know Trevin Wax, except seeing him on blogs. And, I am asking questions…questions, Job….questions because this looks funny, and it makes me wonder….and, I dont think others are wrong for thinking the whole thing smells fishy.
Dude, you come into these comment threads…and I’ve seen you do this before…acting like you can discern people’s motives. Who do you think you are? Do you actually think that you can look into my heart? to see what my motives are? Dude, I think you need a really good dose of reality check.
I am asking questions. I believe the people who are asking questions, and have suspicions, have a reason for it. And, I am asking questions myself….I have said such. Because, I do see a group of people, out there, who are seeking to lead the SBC into a more reformed theology. So, yea, I do have questions…as do other people. And, I really dont see anything wrong with having the questions, and for people having the suspicions about where this is all going.
David
“Dude, I think you need a really good dose of reality check.”
Vol, of all the words you have ever put in print, none have ever been more profoundly true than these. Job does need to take a reality check, especially about the history of this nation.
I am not the Holy Spirit? Please. I can discern your motives based on your own words, including in this very thread.
And again with the “I am asking questions.” No you are not. You are not actually “asking questions” because you never accept the answers that you receive. It is only because of the congenial nature of this forum – which you fully take advantage of using your tactics – that you never get directly confronted about it.
When you ask a question, you can either accept the answer or reject it. If you reject the answer, then you are rejecting the integrity of the person of whom you asked the question, especially when you do so over and over again as you have. And then you play naive or innocent concerning what you are doing? You ask me “Who do I think that I am” … well I ask the same of you.
Whatever you think of me, I spoke plainly and directly concerning what you are doing as represented by your own words, and not only on this forum but on others where I have seen you contribute. You owe Trevin Wax the very same clear, above board discourse that I am participating in with you, not “I am only asking questions … how dare you accuse and abuse me for only asking questions!” tactics, because that is precisely what they are.
Job, on this issue I probably agree more with you than with David, but these words are simply not true.
“I am not the Holy Spirit? Please. I can discern your motives based on your own words, including in this very thread.”
You can question whether David’s words are true, but you do not know his heart or his motives and it is presumptuous of you to presume that you do.
Okay, I think we’ve reached the point where we need to walk it back a bit.
David has the right to ask questions. We have the right to think the questions have been answered sufficiently.
As I told Debbie yesterday, we aren’t going to have any “you are a liar” diatribes.
So, let’s discuss the interview and state our differences as we see them. But let us not wage personal attacks.
David hasn’t yet crossed that line. Bob certainly has.
I for one am excited about it.
If Bob knew his theology, he would know that Amyraldianism is a short sell of Sovereign Grace; it gives away the country store and all of its goods, because the advocates do not understand that the invitation lies in the opposite, the paradox, i.e., predestination is an invitation, and so is particular redemption/limited atonement and, yes, even reprobation (to say nothing of unconditional election, irresistible grace, etc.). Jesus declare to the woman of Canaan, “I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,” and that was His idea of limited atonement as an invitation. O yes, the womanof Canaan treated it as an invitation to worship, her very enabling to respond coming from such a limited perspective. Then Jesus really got tough and became thoroughly negative, “It is not meet to take the children’s bread and to cast it to dogs.” She is not a jew, no a child of israel, and she knows what the jews mean by dogs, namely, unclean, depraved, and even reprobate (returns to its own vomit). Her response shows that even reprobation and depravity/disability (who is more helpless to do anything about their condition than dogs?) are invitations of the impossible which provide their own empowerment. She said, “Truth, Lord, I am what you say, a dog, depraved, disabled, unclean, but even the dogs are permitted to have the crumbs that fall from their masters’ tables..and no one wants the children to eat the crumbs that fall to the floor. So as the dogs are permitted the crumbs, so I am happy to get your crumb, for even the most insignificant crumb of your mercy and grace will more than meet my needs.” Dear Bob, please note, Jesus said to her, Our Lord, if you please, said to her, “O Woman, great is your faith.” Something He never said to any of His Apostles that I can discern. The theology of the Great Awakenings and of the launching of the Great Century of Missions is five point calvinism (which really deserves the more biblical terminology, Sovereign Grace, as Baptists were preaching it before John Calvin was ever born, let alone born again. I read where one old Lollard got burned for believing in Predestination and that was a few years before John was ever thought of…. The third great awakening requires that we once again regain the theology appropriate to what we desire (an awakening), if we would have the like visitation.
Can you guess what comes up on Lifeway’s website as the most popular Sunday School curriculum?
Well, just go to their site under “Sunday School Groups” and scroll down. You will see Church of Christ pastor/author Max Lucado.
Mark,
Which begs the question, “Why?” Why would Max Lucado be writing anything for us?
Wow.
David
Why hasn’t anyone ever said anything about Lucado’s lessons being top sellers from Lifeway?
Mark,
I’ll give you the answer for why its offered first of all. money.
Lucado is a popular writer. People like his books. I like some of his books. I have his devotional calendar on my desk right now.
Mark, let me ask you a question; how many seminary and college professors do you think there are in our SBC land? How many Pastors? And, we have to go outside for advisors and writers?
David
How many DA Carson’s do we have in the SBC? Very few to none.
Matt,
Wow. So, you have a very low view of our professors, then? And, that low view continues with our Pastors?
I know quite a few that I’d love to see write lessons. I know of a lot of Pastors that I’d love to see write our SS material.
David
Volfan,
That isnt what I said and it isnt what I believe. If I did believe that I wouldnt be attending a SBC Seminary for my MDiv.
We have a lot of great pastors and professors, praise the Lord. This doesnt mean there also arent great minds we can learn from outside of the SBC.
Just because I have a very high view of Carson doesnt mean I think little of everyone else.
Sometimes your leaps in logic are astounding.
Matt,
You said that we dont have many that can measure up to Carson, and maybe even none. I disagree. I know you might be a big fan of Carson. Okay. Fine. He’s a great scholar.
I dont think I would have made the statement you made, and I’d love to have SS material written by men that are in our SBC right now. I just dont see the need to go outside of the SBC. I’m not saying that it’s a sin to do so. And, if we do go outside the SBC, I do hope that we will make sure that they are theologically sound.
I’d hate to have more books like “The Shack” sold at Lifeway, and I’d hate to have Joel Osteen and Joyce Meyer writing our SS literature. Wouldnt you?
David
David,
Seriously, did you read the interview with Trevin?
You wrote:
I’d love to have SS material written by men that are in our SBC right now. I just dont see the need to go outside of the SBC.
Trevin wrote:
We’ve even borrowed longtime LifeWay writers from Bible Studies for Life and Explore the Bible. The initial advisory council’s included a mix, as I mentioned earlier, but their role was to give initial feedback on the structure and scope. They don’t have an ongoing role in the development.
Why do you keep intentionally ignoring what he wrote here to suggest that non-SBC’s are writing the material?
Then you wrote:
I’m not saying that it’s a sin to do so. And, if we do go outside the SBC, I do hope that we will make sure that they are theologically sound.
Trevin said:
We’ve never asked anyone if they were Calvinists. We ask them about the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.
So Trevin says they’ve been vetted theologically. If this is a big concern of yours, then why is it not already satisfied in what he says here? Why continue to bring it up as if he hadn’t addressed it?
DR,
Yes, I read the interview. I still see where people could think that this was another way to “reform” the SBC. When the majority of Advisors, counselors, etc. are 4 and 5 pt. Calvinists..the vast majority; then I can see why some people would wonder about this. And, that they’d be called theologically sound….I believe that Calvinists are theologically sound….I dont agree with thier beliefs and views on the finer points of theology….but, I wouldnt call them not theologically sound. I would call them Reformed in their theology. And, if we have a lot of Reformed people writing the lessons, then of course its gonna have their reformed views woven into every thing they write. Thus, the concern for some people that this is another way to influence the SBC to become “Reformed.”
DR, can you see that some people might see it this way? Or, do you just dismiss them as crazy, conspiracy nuts?
David
David, I don’t see any “leap” in your logic. Someone says we have very few in the SBC comparable to Carson and you point out that isn’t so.
I don’t think that takes any great leap of logic.
This is not to say Carson is a lightweight. But, most of our “Carsons” I think you will find are up to their eyeballs pastoring local churches. That doesn’t make them any less of a theologian. It simply makes it difficult to spend time writing theology.
Thanks, David, for your point of view.
I think it’s atrocious.
With that, I am…
Peter
Because of the threaded comments, this comment is kind of out there on its own and it is unclear what you are calling atrocious.
Just a guess here: Lucado.
That was the assumption I made, but it is unclear.
Mark,
I thought I clicked “reply” to your comment but it kicked it to the end of the line. Allow me to clarify: Lucado’s lessons being top sellers from Lifeway is atrocious.
With that, I am…
Peter
Let me answer this one Mark.
It is clearly labeled Max Lucado. If someone want to purchase his stuff and I have read him, that is wonderful and it is great that Lifeway carries it.
I am asking Lifeway and Wax here to label this project for what it is; that is all. A Perspective. That is more than fair.
If it does not sell then so be it. It does not need to be sold to SB churches that are not of and do not want to be Reformed in their theology. This is not rocket science and you can dress this project up any way you want to but in the end that is exactly what it is.
All this banter back and forth is really ridiculous. Lifeway knew it would be coming. David is right; if this editorial board was 100% non-calvinist this blog would be lit up like Vegas at midnight and everyone knows it.
><>”
You have made assumptions, Bob, without having even seen the materials.
I think that most Calvinists are used to non-Calvinist SBC SS literature, for the first place.
I think you are off-base to be accusing Trevin Wax of deception, Bob. You make an assumption of a hidden agenda on the part of people I have found to be honorable.
You don’t have to use the curriculum. But you should give honorable brothers in Christ respect that they are not lying to you and you should examine the materials before you make such sweeping accusations.
Dave,
You nailed it! Most curriculum that has come out of Lifeway has typically been very noncalvinistic and yet you dont see Calvinists in a ridiculous uproar… I think the uproar shows more about the people’s hearts that are whining than it does the curriculum itself. In fact, it HAS to because the curriculum hasnt even come out yet!
Bob,
As Dave said, you are making big assumptions that you dont know to be true at all. My guess is that when the curriculum actually comes out we wont hear much from you all because you will see that there isnt a hidden Calvinist agenda in this curriculum.
I agree with others that you, Bob, are making assumptions about the finished product (that no one has seen yet) based on a sort of “guilt by association” (my terminology) basis. You really should wait and see if in fact there is some sort of subversive Calvinist agenda in the material before impugning the Lifeway folks.
From experience some years ago as a SBC pastor responsible for the educational materials in two churches, I NEVER saw anything even close to presenting even 1 point of Calvinism. So, even if this new material were decidedly Calvinistic (which Wax has said it is not) would it not be a drop in the non-Calvinistic bucket anyway?
BTW, if 2 or 3 or 4 points can be Calvinist, can 2 or 3 or 4 points of agreement with Arminius be Arminian? This Calvinist/Non Calvinist labeling seems one-sided.
Listen. This is not complicated. ALL ELEVEN of these folks are Calvinists. That is a FACT. I guess I am the only one who believes that they will be consistent in their theology in this project. Once again, If I were one of these guys and even Trevin, I would be offended at the notion that I would not write what I believed in my heart was the truth of the Gospel as I see it.
You guys have no problem holding your own and sticking together on other issues… not sure why all of a sudden there is this idea that these 11 folks are now not Calvinist in their thinking and they are compromising what they believe is the true gospel…
Sorry. This is indeed pitiful.
><>”
Is there a ‘Calvinist’ gospel and a ‘non-Calvinist’ gospel that differ from one another ? If so, how?
Bob,
That isnt what anyone is saying.
Give it up already.
“Is there a ‘Calvinist’ gospel and a ‘non-Calvinist’ gospel that differ from one another ? If so, how?”
L’s, No. There is only one gospel. That one gospel is the biblical gospel. The gospel I have shared with you for the last four years is the only gospel.
In short version this time:
Jesus died for sinners. Any sinner, you, me, any sinner you may name, who recognizes she or he has sinned against a just and righteous God and repents, believing in the atonement of Christ alone for salvation will be saved.
Again L’s, that is the short version. We have dialogued about it in more depth before as you know. Nonetheless, if a person recognizes they have sinned against God, repents and believes the biblical account of the gospel of Christ, that person will be saved.
L’s that truth will stand if all the Church Fathers, all the Reformers, all the Southern Baptist preachers, and all the Catholic Popes never existed.
L’s it is in Christ alone my friend. It is in Christ alone. It is the Good Story of Jesus Christ.
If there is NO difference between the ‘gospel’ of the Calvinists and the non-Calvinists;
then there should be no dust-up over Trevin’s ‘The Gospel Project’.
If there IS some difference, in the eyes of one of the groups, then I could see reason for all the fuss.
L’s,
There is no other gospel that the biblical gospel. I have shared that gospel with you.
The argument here between some of the fellows is a, for lack of a better identifying word, “sectarian” argument about the leanings within the preference of soteriological dogma of those who are involved in “The Gospel Project.”
I, for one, wish this particular argument had died in the loins of its father.
L’s, do not let the Trapper use this argument as bait for the snare. This argument will ultimately go the way of all such debates. This kind of argument does in fact give credibility to the “odium theologicum” having become a proverb in our contemporary culture even beyond that of the earlier days of our faith.
L’s my friend, this is just another “preacher argument” whose life expectancy is short in comparison to eternity. On the other hand, the Good Story of Jesus Christ and His power to save sinners as revealed in the Word of God is eternal in its truth, nature, and its ultimate consequences.
L’s, believe the biblical gospel and let this present argument just be amusing reading as should most comment threads in Baptist blogs.
Bob,
Why don’t you try reading what Trevin said when Dave asked him what is the gospel? Despite your silly attempts to prove the contrary, Calvinists do not preach a different gospel.
The Max material is not a Lifeway curriculum. It is a product sold like you find in the store.
O! and Bob we will regain it and are regaining it as the most liberal theology the world has ever seen, able to take the whole earth and every in and out of vagaries theological and other wise and nudge them ever so gently toward the great glory coming.
Bob who??????????????????????
><>”
Also, let me add right here. I’m not against using literature, or CD teaching series, in your own Church, for studying. If you think they’re good, sound teachers; then amen….study them til your hearts desire.
But, we’re talking about SS material to be offered to SBC Churches from our SBC SS material provider.
I see a big difference.
David
PS. Again, I’m not mad at anybody. I’m not trying to be mean and nasty towards anyone. I certainly consider Trevin and Ed Stetzer and Thom Rainier as Brothers in Christ. I wish I was as smart as them. So, please dont try to read any animosity into what I’m saying.
David, do you affirm the Baptist Faith and Message 2000? Because, based on its statement on “Cooperation,” Wax and Lifeway are perfectly in line with the BF&M 2000 concerning The Gospel Project:
XIV. Cooperation
Christ’s people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ’s Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ’s people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.
Exodus 17:12; 18:17ff.; Judges 7:21; Ezra 1:3-4; 2:68-69; 5:14-15; Nehemiah 4; 8:1-5; Matthew 10:5-15; 20:1-16; 22:1-10; 28:19-20; Mark 2:3; Luke 10:1ff.; Acts 1:13-14; 2:1ff.; 4:31-37; 13:2-3; 15:1-35; 1 Corinthians 1:10-17; 3:5-15; 12; 2 Corinthians 8-9; Galatians 1:6-10; Ephesians 4:1-16; Philippians 1:15-18.
Amen, Jared. Yes, I agree with what it says, here.
Let me ask you…how many seminary and college profs to you reckon we have in the SBC? How many Pastors do we have? And, we have to go find some from outside of the SBC?
David
David,
This is a funny line of reasoning here. You don’t use this sort of xenophobic questioning when you are considering doctors or lawyers do you? Heck, you probably don’t even consider that when it comes to pulpit supply. Would you turn down John MacArthur preaching at your Church if it were possible just because he wasn’t a Southern Baptists? Of course not. You would want the best. And D.A. Carson is the best on the subject matter of this material. Southern Baptists should get the best to advise them on their material. I doubt few other Southern Baptists really care whether they are a card-carrying member of the SBC, as long as they are Biblical, Orthodox, Baptistic, and Spirit-Led.
DR,
I really dont think that you’re reading what I write. I think you’re attributing to me things that I have not said.
David
David, man you are really working hard to completely ignore what I am writing. All that does is show you have no rebuttal. Again, maybe it’s time to pack it up and admit your line of logic is severely flawed.
If we all labored to understand completely the other side, 1/2 of blogging battles would be ameliorated.
And taken care of too.
David, “find some outside the sbc” is your assumption. Your assumption however is not what the sbc messengers voted to affirm. We voted to affirm the BF&M 2000. Stetzer, Wax, and Lifeway are submitting to the confession. Wax has even argued above that the whole study submits to the confession.
D.A. Carson is one of the best New Testament scholars alive. He was one of the editors of The New Dictionary of Biblical Theology, which is over 800 pages that shows how the Bible fits together in Christ. This is the point of The Gospel Project, to show how Christ is the fulfillment of Scripture. Carson is one of the best living authorities on biblical/thematic theology. So long as the study does not violate the BF&M 2000, why wouldn’t you want one of the best biblical theologians working on it? (By “biblical theologian,” I mean someone who has worked extensively to show how Christ fulfills every book of the Bible).
BTW: The next time certain bloggers quote non-Southern Baptists, I hope I see you question them in the comment stream.
Jared,
I’m not against non-SB theologians and writers.
Are you reading what I wrote in the above comments?
David
David, if you’re not against non-SB theologians and writers, then what’s your point?
I have said that I use John McArthurs materials, and J. Vernon McGee’s materials, in preparing my own sermons. I have said that I’m not against Churches using people, who arent SBC. I’m not. I am not.
I just dont see the need to go outside the SBC to find advisors for OUR SBC SS material. Why would we? Why would we go outside the SBC to find SS writers? Why would we, when we have so many good ones in the SBC? What’s the point of it? Especially when we’re publishing material for SBC Churches??????
I’m not saying that its a sin to do so. I’m not saying that Nashville is gonna fall off into the Cumberland River if they do so. I am just wondering why? Why go outside when we have very qualified people within? Is there a reason for it?
wow….good grief, Charlie Brown!!! lol
David
David, if you’re not against it, why do you care?
I’ll answer your question with a question, “If the writers and advisers affirm the BF&M 2000 and the final product submits to the BF&M 2000, why NOT go outside the SBC?” Lifeway is actually carrying about the “Cooperation” section of the BF&M 2000 faithfully.
If you’re willing to go outside the SBC to be advised on your sermons, why can’t Lifeway go outside the SBC to be advised on this curriculum? If you preach to an SBC congregation while allowing non-SBC people to influence your sermons, I think you answer your own question.
Jared,
Let me see if I can make myself more clear. I apologize for not being able to express myself more clearly.
I see nothing wrong with you and me and every other pastor using anyone that they think is sound and good to read for sermon preparation. I see nothing wrong with you and me and every other Church in the SBC using materials which werent written by SBC people.
But, when we’re writing material for the SBC…as an entity of the SBC ….like Lifeway is….why do we feel the need to go outside of the SBC with all of the qualified people that we hav in house? And, we’re producing material for SBC Churches? This is not just for your preparation only. This is not just for my church only. This is being produced by an SBC entity….this material is for SBC Churches….so, why would we feel the need to go outside?
David
David, look in the mirror and answer how you can do it. That should be a good enough answer for you.
This was a great interview. Dave did a good job asking the right questions and not shying away from the controversies. Trevin answered all of those questions with clarity. Why people can’t take others at their word is beyond me…
My church is VERY excited about using The Gospel Project. We will be using it for all of our kids and still looking at the youth and adult curriculum!
David (Volfan):
Awaiting your response to https://sbcvoices.com/the-gospel-project-an-interview-with-trevin-wax/#comment-74150
Excellent interview! I am very excited to see the finished product, and hope that our church will utilize these resources.
I find it kind of amusing that some really think Trevin would be interviewed and respond, “Yes, the writers are Calvinists and we thought the SBC needed a deeper and “true Gospel” curriculum and that would be Reformed.
But then, I found out on another thread from Jared that I am Reformed and did not know it. :o) So, who knows how things are defined anymore.
From what I gather this curriculum is Trevin’s main job at Lifeway? Is that correct? Or does he work for Lifeway? I am not real clear on what entity he works for. Is this curriculum a full time gig and indefinite? I am not sure I am following the structure of how this works.
My position is to steer clear of Lifeway and such curricula altogether. The goal should be to get people really studying on their own and checking to see what other humans say the bible says, second. Not first. Be a facilitator and get people digging. Resources are free these days with interlinears, etc. But then, I doubt many preachers or the marketing guys at Lifeway will like that idea. (wink)
It bothers me a great deal that people can, with impunity, continue to post that Wax and Lifeway are essentially and intentionally deceiving the SBC community.
David007,
I’m unclear of what your recent reasons given to Jared are. You write:
You see nothing wrong with, but give no reasons why. Then, you say:
You post your objection, but then just ask why. Asking why isn’t an actual reason to object to something. I’d like to see actual reasoning for the different opinions in the above two paragraphs so that I might understand better.
Mark,
In the first paragraph, it’s all about my own personal studying, or your own personal studying. Or, its about yours or my own churches studying. And, if your particular church has certain beliefs and views that are either more Calvinistic, or less Calvinistic than others…then fine…go that way. Or, if I want my Church to hear more premillenial teaching, and you’d rather have amillenial teaching, for instance…then fine….go for it. Or, if you’re like me…dispensational leanings, but not a true dispensationalist….but, you’re more of a covenant kind of guy…then, okay. And, if someone’s church wants to be a full fledged, 5 pt. Calvinist, Founders friendly Church; then that’s fully their right and priviilege to be that.
But, when we’re talking about an SBC entity, Lifeway, who’s in charge of getting SS literature out to our churches; then we should be making sure that all the literature has a distinctively Baptist flavor to it. We should make sure that it’s teaching what we believe as the Baptist kind of Christians…not what the Independent Baptist believe…not what the American Baptist believe…not what the Presbyterians believe…not what the Methodists believe….etc. We should make sure that it’s distinctively, SB literature….BECAUSE, we’re SB’s. And, please no one jump on the spiritual, high horse, and tell me that we’re Christians, and we shouldnt be arrogant, or prideful. We are Christians, and we’re the SB kind of Christians. So, our literature should reflect that. And, not only that, but why should we go elsewhere whenever we have such fiine scholars in our SBC to begin with?????????????
Now, put me in charge of Lifeway(bad move, BTW…lol), and let me start making the SS literature fit all of my personal convictions and preferences. Now, I’d like that a whole lot. There might be a few more who’d think it was grand. But, there would clearly be an agenda from me to make the SBC exactly like me! would it not? And, that’s also kind of what some people are feeling with this new material coming out of Lifeway, and it being called “The Gospel Project”….with so many reformed types being the leaders, advisors, etc. of it….do you see what I’m saying?
David
David, Trevin already said that the BF&M 2000 was the standard for all those involved in making the curriculum; it was also the standard for the content of the curriculum. I don’t understand why you’re still asking this question?
Jared,
Can a person believe the BFM2K and be a 5 pt., reformed Calvinist? yes, or course.
Can a person affirm the BFM2k, and be a non-Calvinist? yes, of course.
So, the matter is not just whether you affirm the BFM2K, or not….but rather, which direction is the curriculum going within the framework of the BFM2K.
David
David,
What about The Gospel Project or about what Trevin has said makes you think it won’t “teach what we believe as the Baptist kind of Christians” or have “a distinctively Baptist flavor”? Because many of its contributors are Calvinistic or Reformed? Trevin has already said the study isn’t about Calvinism (or any other kind of soteriology), but about all Scripture pointing to Christ, which I believe all of us Southern Baptists (and even other kinds of Baptists) can agree is “what we believe as the Baptist kind of Chrisians”.
You keep asking the same questions and raising the same objections even after Trevin and others here have answered them…
According to the greatest source of Internet wisdom (Wikipedia) there are over 16 million people in the Southern Baptist Convention.
16,000,000 points of view.
Anytime you make a theological statement (or in this instance curriculum) someone’s bound to disagree with part of it. And, being good baptist, means they will probably take the time to complain about it… (just kidding) (but seriously…). I think it’s a victory that they wrote a Theologically based curriculum that seemingly a small percentage of people are in an uproar about. At least it seems to have more cheerleaders than neighsayers.
I say kudos to Lifeway and Mr. Wax Et. al. for proclaiming what they believe is true and making Christ the focus of our Sunday School time.
“””16 million people in the Southern Baptist Convention.”””
You really are just a “kid” 🙂
We certainly must include all “reformed and otherwise” to even approach that number!
David Worley,
I don’t think I agree with your position on all this, but I appreciate that you’ve given a reasonable counterpoint to the points we’ve made here.
One day, in heaven, you will agree with me on everything!
Dave,
One things for sure….we will agree on everything once we’re in Heaven.
🙂
Love ya, Brother.
David
One observation that may have been made, but I’ve not read all 177 comments:
Lifeway runs as a business. Every dollar that operates Lifeway, including paying for writers, comes from people buying Lifeway materials.
If it’s not acceptable to the target audience then it won’t be bought and they’ll write it off and come up with something different. It’s not like this is going to be mailed out to every Southern Baptist Church with a letter saying that we have to do it or even suggesting that we ought to do it.
It’s going forth from the marketing department of a business. If you don’t want your church to use it, then don’t use it. If it’s really wrong, then contact Lifeway about it.
If our churches are buying curriculum without considering sources, authors, and contributors then we’re in serious trouble. That should have been true even before we tried to reach the broader market by not having the “Baptist Sunday School Board” before. After all, did churches in the 60s-70s-80s not have to employ a touch of discernment about liberal authors and avoid those materials, even if created by the BSSB?
A warning post or question post or two is one thing, but the extent of this argument over a voluntary consumer product is a little bit overkill, isn’t it?
Doug,
A lot of Churches trust Lifeway. They dont feel the need to check out who the writers are, because they’re trusting Lifeway to sell good, sound material. I mean, we’ve elected good, sound trustees, who have supposedly hired good, sound people to run Lifeway. So, Churches just trust that Lifeway is gonna sell good, sound material.
So, when a non-reformed Church in the SBC looks at the new Lifeway material, and it’s called the Gospel Project; then some of them are certainly gonna try it out. And, hopefully, it will be as Trevin says, and how a bunch of other people in here are saying….that it’s not gonna teach reformed theology…even though all the advisors, counselors, etc are Calvinists in their theology. Okay….
David
Reading some of the comments suggesting LifeWay is promoting some kind of conspiracy or take-over, I’d say they better work a little harder.
If this is the best conspiracy “Calvinsts” can come up with, I’ll sleep good at night as a point-less Calvinist.
Could it be that good people are trying to do a good thing to get the Good News out? It could be . . . .
PS–Good Interview. I really feel that Trevin’s spirit showed through and I was impressed. I’m not generally a great friend of the “LifeWay” crowd as a matter of principle.
Hi all,
I went to Lifeway’s website and viewed the sample leader guides for the Gospel Project. I must say I am a little suspicious. Although there was nothing blatantly Reformed in the samples of content shown, there are little quotations from Christians past and present in the margins (called “Voices from the Church” or “Voices from Church History”).
Here is the list of “Voices” contributions from the sample Gospel Project for Students Leader’s Guide provided. Anyone who wants to check this out can go to the Gospel Project web site and see for yourself:
Larry Crabb
John Owen (two quotes)
Jerry Bridges (two quotes)
John Piper
Christian George
Martin Luther
Every name on this list is from the Reformed tradition save Luther, and what he says meshes well with it. This proves nothing in and of itself, but makes me suspicious that only one sector of the church is being promoted as authoritative in speaking for the church.
In the sample adult guide at the same site, the quotes are more balanced, with a good dose of patristics. There is Basil, Diodore of Tarsus, and John of Damascus. They are along with Gabriel Fackre (United Church of Christ), and then three Reformed folk (Carl Henry, Francis Schaeffer, and Jim Hamilton). The balance is better, but I think there is a slant toward the Reformed thinkers in those leader guides that were viewable as samples. In the two sample guides provided, quotes from “respected churchmen” were thus:
Reformed-leaning (counting Luther) 11 total quotes (73%)
Church fathers 3 total quotes (20%)
Neither 1 total quote (7%)
It looks to me like there is a bit of Reformed slant looking at what I can see (only 2 samples provided) in the quotes from the church. You can take this for what it’s worth.
Jim G.
Jim: What about the quotes themselves?
Hi Bill,
There is nothing especially one way or the other in the quotes, in my opinion. I think Christian George makes a big deal out of the “dead” in Eph 2:1, but that is about as blatantly Calvinistic (which it isn’t) as it gets.
My only suspicion is a very heavy slant toward Reformed thinkers in the two available samples. Admittedly, the sample size is too small to make a definitive call. I’m just a little wary. That’s all. Not losing sleep wary, but wary.
Jim G.
Jim: It is the wary part that is frankly kind of insulting (which I’m sure you are not doing intentionally). The idea that people have to be wary of Calvinists. I’m not a premillenialist, and that’s fine that people are. But what if I started telling people to be wary of premils? Should premils not rightly be offended by that?
Hi Bill,
I apologize if my language offends. It is not intentional.
I read above, per Trevin, that Calvinism is not an issue. But the overwhelming majority of the contributors are. Then, I read the sample materials and see the folks used to be the voice of the “church,” and it just makes me wonder.
I’m not wary of Calvinists. I love and respect Calvinists. I disagree with the Calvinist conceptions of several topics, including providence, anthropology, and soteriology. I am wary of what might (and, given what I saw, I emphasize “might”) be in the curriculum. I may be over-reacting. I’ve done that before.
Jim G.
Jim: “But the overwhelming majority of the contributors are.”
We don’t know that. We don’t know the soteriological positions of the contributors, just the initial advisory board.
My bad – advisory board.
Jim G.
What in the world is Gabriel Fackre of the United Church of Christ doing advising Lifeway. They had the first three 100% gay churches in the U.S – Boston, D.C , & San Diego . Must be worth doing a lot of business to Lifeway without hurting any feelings . Well they don’t need the morning after pills anyway – that’s a good thing.
Mr. Wolford-
I don’t know anything about Fackre, but your assertion is wrong. Jim G. names him in a quote in the margin of a leader guide. This is a far, far cry from “advising Lifeway,” as you state.
Hi Jack,
In fairness, he wasn’t advising. The curriculum just uses a quote from him. I think the topic was about creation, if I am not mistaken. Fackre is a respected theologian, even if he is affiliated with the UCC.
Jim G.
Thanks for the reply. Fackre I don’t know personally but I had a meeting many years ago with the Eastern Regional Head of the UCC in Virginia , along with another UCC pastor who was interested in how the Head would reply to my question when I asked about the Passage in Leviticus on homosexuality . His answer was , ” This meeting is over !” I replied , ” Then you go home . We’ve come to far .” UCC has grown exponentially in part by buying up Congregational Churches that were in bad shape – but even current UCC churches have no problem with gay leaders in any section of their churches . I’m not the holder of any secret . Quoting Fackre ” in the margin ” might be all that’s necessary to make a deal ; however , it might still remain that UCC’s theology is hard to find in print amongst their own papers but no doubt remains after entering many of their churches .
Jim and others, are we really counting who was quoted and who was not quoted? I sing songs in worship from my heart written by Arminians. The question is not how many reformed vs. non-reformed people were quoted, the question is, “Does what was quoted agree with the BF&M 2000?” The reality is that I may agree more with the Arminian who was quoted than the Reformed person who was quoted, or vice versa, depending on the quote. The emphasis should be on whether we agree with what was said or not. The truth is that Arminians and Calvinists are not that different in many ways.
BTW: Did anyone notice that William Birch, writer at the Arminian, thanked me for a recent article I wrote on the gospel? He’s an Arminian and I’m a type of Calvinist. How could he possibly agree with me on the gospel? https://sbcvoices.com/americans-are-running-to-false-gospels-at-an-alarming-rate/#comment-72417
Jim, Austin Stone member/partner here and a missional community leader with them. Can confirm that they are affiliated with SBC, though it is not explicitly stated on their newly designed website. Both the lead pastor (Kevin Peck) and pastor of preaching and vision (Matt Carter) both were educated at SWBTS and still have good ties to a lot of the SBC folk.
One wonders if certain passages will be treated like passages in the ESV Study Bible where they present something like this from the ESVSB in Rev. 20:
“Rev. 20:4–5 I saw thrones, and seated on them were those to whom the authority to judge was committed. Premillennialists argue that “coming down from heaven” (v. 1) and the reference to “the nations” (v. 3) show that these “thrones” are on earth (during Christ’s millennial reign). Amillennialists argue that the echoes in these verses from Daniel’s vision (compare Dan. 7:9, 22) indicate the thrones are in heaven. John sees the souls of those who had been beheaded . . . and those who had not worshiped the beast. These are the faithful believers who came to life. Premillennialists think deceased believers will experience bodily resurrection at the beginning of the millennium, and that is what is meant by this is the first resurrection. Amillennialists think “they came to life” and “the first resurrection” means their souls entered into the presence of God in heaven after they died. Their deaths were their victory over the dragon and beast (Rev. 12:11; 15:2). They will be given new bodies at the final resurrection (20:12–15). Some postmillennialists agree with the amillennial view of “the first resurrection.” Other postmillennialists think it refers to the future victory of Christianity in the world after its earlier persecution. and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. Premillennialists think this means that these resurrected believers will assist with Christ’s thousand-year reign as righteous King over the whole earth. Amillennialists think this means deceased believers are “reigning” with Christ from heaven now. Postmillennialists see it as a future triumph of Christianity in the world.”
Perhaps the material will say something like, “some see this passage as….while others see it as saying….”
Just wondering.
For a group of people who I’m guessing are probably opposed to affirmative action and quotas, there seems to be an idea that there needs to be certain percentages in place for things to be proper in the SBC. No more than X% of Calvinists can be part of any group or serve on any committee. Of those X%, only Y% can be 5 pointers. A Calvinist is evidently someone who holds 4 or 5 points, whereas 3 pointers are categorized as non-Calvinists.
Evidently non-Calvinists are able to preach and teach the Gospel without the danger of “indoctrinating” unsuspecting churches with a non-Calvinist agenda, but Calvinists presumably cannot preach and teach the Gospel without putting a reformed slant on it. It doesn’t matter if they say they are not, because it also seems to be taken as read that Calvinists are sneaky and deceptive and cannot be taken at their word.
I think the Bro. Wax alluded to an important distinction in the article.
Right now there are two distinct SS curriculums being published by lifeway.
The “Explore the Bible” curriculum has as its implicit goal to periodically move through all of scripture in a linear, book by book fashion. I think it repeats every 8 years.
The benefits of this approach are clear to me. It exposes a disciple of Christ to all of the books of the Bible and gives a broad overview and perspective to the Bible.
However, there are limitations to this approach. The primary one being that a good deal of the time, books are handled too quickly, and much important material is left out. It is impossible in one hour a week to give in depth study of every book of the Bible in 8 years, so the reality is the author must decide the high points he wants to emphasize.
The second curriculum being presented by Lifeway is “Bible Studies for Life.” As I understand it, this curriculum is designed to be heavily weighted toward application, “how then should we live” type questions. Again, the benefit is clear. What Christian doesn’t need to know how to apply the word to his life?
This approach also has limitations. Chiefly, the topical nature of this approach has sometimes left me frustrated, because it ends up teaching what to do heavily and the “why” insufficiently addressed.
My personal experience with this curriculum has been very unsatisfactory. Many times, the arguments made take the biblical passages used and have failed to provide sufficient context and have inadvertently used biblical passages in a unsatisfactory manner.
Now, we have a new curriculum presented, “The Gospel Project,”
Which has as its goal a gospel-centered approach. Maybe they should have titled it, the Spurgeon method, based on his famous quote on making a “beeline for the cross.”
It seems from the interview at hand, that there has been requests made for a different approach than the current offerings that addresses the inherent weaknesses in the other two approaches and Lifeway has moved to address this need.
I didn’t make this request to Lifeway, but I have felt this need that these requests represent. I think that our church members need to see the thread of redemptive history throughout the Bible. It is there, majestically, and clearly. If you can’t take a passage from any part of the Bible and connect it to the gospel message, than you are theologically ignorant. I submit, many of our SS members could not do this very thing. Ignorance is curable.
Nothing is inherently wrong in any of the approaches.
And I for one welcome this new approach, I might even start Lifeway again, if the need for SS materials arises.
BTW, if you haven’t, I suggest you watch the Matt Chandler promo on the Lifeway website. He says well what I wanted to say about a gospel centered approach and its benefits
So far we have Church of Christ pastor Max Lucado as one of Lifeway’s best-selling authors and a Roman Catholic apologist representing the Christian position at an NOBTS event, but Calvinism is the real SBC problem.
One of the best and most telling comments so far!
Max Lucado is marketed as a “top selling author” or “best selling author” but he is not part of Lifeway’s Sunday School curriculum as a best selling SS author. Life Lessons is a Lifeway curriculum but not Life Lessons by Max Lucado. As Ed Stetzers article state, quite fighting boogy men.
Peter Kreeft is not one of the Church’s foremost ‘Catholic apologists’, no. He is a philosopher and a political conservative.
He likely is not supportive of many of the Catholic Church’s basic social justice teachings, so there, most certainly, he does NOT speak for the Catholic Church, no.
VolFan – since you won’t interact with my previous post, maybe you will with this one…
The above bold-face section is wher you and Tim Roger & Bob Hadley & Peter Lumpkins (and any others who fit the bill) go around the bend, beyond the bounds of Christian fellowship.
1 Cor 13:7
As believers you have NO RIGHT to not trust the authors of this project until it proves itself to be unworthy. Period; “(love)…always trusts.”
– You can ask questions all day long about the content
– You can wonder about the format and how it will fit in with your current Sunday School format
– You can wonder if it might be superflous and therefore not a wise use of money
To “have suspicions” about it, to question the theological integrity of the authors, to suspect (without proof) that this is some calvinist propaganda take-over machine (again, without hard proof) is unbecoming of any Christian.
I think we (this applies to EVERYONE) have 3 choices:
1) Either we practice Love as described by the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor 13 (and he was writting to a divided opinionated group there) and “trust” and “hope” and “rejoice with the truth”
2) We keep going as we are: back-bitting, dividing, un-trusting, accusing AND we tear 1 Cor 13 out of our Bibles so we have none of that Love stuff to keep us accountable
3) We finally admit we aren’t believers and are not bound to behave as Scripture demands from each of us.
We are commanded by scripture to believe the best, and when that fails, then to forgive and reconcile. Too many seem to want to say, “HA, I was right” when the other fails (this applies to everyone). And WAY TOO MANY keep records of wrongs (i think blogging encourages that behavior).
When I look at the teachings of Calvinism, they are VERY different from the teachings of non-Calvinism. How much that difference affects answers to basic questions of faith . . . that is a concern for people, yes.
Well, L’s, since we’re asking off topic questions now– 🙂
Can a muslim or a mormon go to heaven without recanting their muslim/mormon faith, repenting of their sins, and consciously before they die trusting Jesus Christ to save them? Yes or no?
Greg,
I do try to practice love for others…even believing something until proven wrong. I dont think this means, though, that I have to buy the land someone is selling in Arizona; even though they tell me that it has the Booklyn Bridge across a huge lake in the middle of the desert. Do you? I also dont think this means that I cant ask questions about things….are you for stifling free speech? Do you think this means that we should all be “Yes, Men?” Do you think I’m being unloving, mean, and nasty just because I ask the questions? AND, have you see Jim G.’s post below about the writers of this new SS material?????
David
So according to your analogy, do you think Trevin is trying to sell you land in Arizona that he is telling you “has the Booklyn Bridge across a huge lake in the middle of the desert” by answering the questions regarding Calvinism and the TGP?
Jason,
No, I wasnt saying that. I was simply trying to illustrate to Greg that loving others doesnt mean that we have to believe everything told to us…that we dont have a right to ask questions about things.
Do you think that loving others means that we have to accept everything that’s told to us?
David
PS. I want to believe what Trevin said in the interview. I really do. When I read things like Jim G.’s post below about the writers….well….then, I have to wonder again….
No, David, I don’t think loving others means we have to accept everything that’s told to us. However, I do think your questions were answered. The loving thing to do now at this point would be to stop bringing it up over and over again – at least until we read the material to see if it matches up with what Trevin has said.
If you really want to believe what Trevin said in the interview, why don’t you just believe? Love always trusts… at least until you’ve read the material…
Funny you should mention a bridge across a like in Arizona… we don’t have the Brooklyn bridge, but we do have the old London bridge on Lake Havasu.
The only thing “unloving” is your suspicion. Questioning the content, no problems. Questioning the motives, problem; unless you have proof.
To use your analogy, they are offering a bridge for sale on a lake in Arizona, but they are NOT asking you to buy sight-unseen. Come on out, fly into Phoenix Sky-Harbor (or Las Vegas or Yuma if you wish) and we’ll drive over to see it. You can walk on it, drive on it, get a boat and ski under it to check it out. But don’t say “it can’t be a real thing” until you’ve checked it out.
From your perspective, I have nothing to fault you for: the idea of a bridge over a like in the Arizona desert sound MIGHTY crazy or impossible. But don’t pre-judge and give in to suspicion that there is an ulterior motive (just out for your money) until you come see the bridge.
Greg,
Can I ask you something? When you look at the list of advisors, then you look at the list of the writers which have been picked, the ones that Jim G. has shed light on…every, single one of them are strongly reformed…what does that tell you about the new, SS material? What viewpoint do you think it’ll take on all the subjects that it’s gonna deal with?
David
David,
Do you think it’s possible that when they come to an issue where Calvinists and non-Calvinists disagree (i.e. Limited Atonement) that they will present the reformed point of view as well as the other point of view.
Maybe they will be biased and only present one. Maybe they’ll present both but obviously favor one. But is it possible that they’ll present both fairly even though they personally favor one or the other?
Hi all,
I did some more digging. The Gospel Project website lists both the advisory board and some of the authors of the curriculum. Here is the advisory board:
Don Carson
James McDonald
J. D. Greear
Kimberly Thornbury
Colin Hanson
Joe Thorn
Matt Chandler
Danny Akin
Eric Mason
Jay Noh
Juan Sanchez
Here are the listed authors. I am fairly positive this is not an exhaustive list.
Trevin Wax
Jared Wilson
Jonathan Leeman
Jeff Ashley
Afshin Ziafat
Juan Sanchez
Christian George
Halim Suh
Let’s see a little about each.
Wax is pretty well-known. He is the subject of the interview above and is (along with Ed Stetzer) an editor. He is now affiliated with the Gospel Coalition. He calls himself an “Amyraldian” in the interview above, which is a four-point Calvinist
Wilson is a mover and shaker in The Gospel Coalition. He is pastor of Middletown Springs Community Church in Vermont. The church is NOT SBC, but non-denominational. He confesses in his blog to being “converted” to a Reformed view of soteriology.
Leeman is the editorial director for 9Marks, a popular ministry associated with the Reformed Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, pastored by Mark Dever
Ashley (I think it might be “Geoff” Ashley, and if so this is who he is) is a pastor of Village Church (pastored by Matt Chandler), and a staunch Calvinist. I read his paper on “free will.” He follows Edwards and Piper. He gives references on sovereignty and election from a staunchly Calvinist perspective.
Ziafat is lead pastor of Providence Church in Frisco, TX. It is an Acts 29 church that was planted by the Village Church and affirms unconditional election in their doctrinal statement, so they are Calvinist. They are an Acts 29 church affiliated with the SBC.
Sanchez is the senior pastor of High Pointe Baptist Church in Austin, TX. The church upholds the 1853 NH Confession and openly claims to be Calvinistic on the website.
George is a professor at Oklahoma Baptist University and the son of historical theologian Timothy George. He is Baptist, but also upholds the Westminster Confession of Faith, the confessional statement of Presbyterianism.
Suh is a pastor at Austin Stone Community Church in Austin, Texas. I cannot see any evidence on their website that this church is affiliated with the SBC. They affirm unconditional election on their doctrinal statement, so they are Calvinist.
That is 8-for-8 Calvinists, if you are counting. It’s also only 6-for-8 that are firmly SBC. I would dearly love to see what the lessons on election, grace, sin, and free will look like, but, alas, those are not part of the sample lessons.
Jim G.
Maybe the takeover has already happened and there aren’t any non-Calvinists left!!!. 😉
Jim G.,
Very interesting information.
David R. Brumbelow
Jim,
And then, people wonder why so many people are wondering… even suspicious…about this new SS curriculum, and what its intent is. Good gracious.
David
Well, if you’re still wondering about “this new SS curriculum, and what its intent is”, you could always read Trevin’s interview where he says:
“We’re directing our writers for the adult and student pieces to ask three questions of every lesson they deliver:
?“How does this topic fit into the big story of Scripture?” This question helps them connect the dots for learners to see how doctrine relates to the grand narrative.
?“What is distinctively Christian about the way I am addressing the topic?” This question always leads us back to the good news of salvation through Jesus.
?“How does this truth equip God’s church to live on mission?” This question helps us keep doctrine and Bible study connected to missional application.”
Let me ask you a question. How do you think the soteriological views of any of the writers will bear on how they answer those questions? In other words, what about the answering those questions in a SS lesson format would you disagree with?
Jim G.,
Glad to see you back here. Yet, allow me to enter a comment here that differs with yours somewhat.
Jim G., from the beginning Sunday School curriculum has been written, rewritten, edited and reedited at the BSSB, now known as LifeWay, by individuals from a many colored canvas of soteriological leanings with in the parameters of orthodox Christianity.
The backgrounds of the writers and even the editors of Southern Baptist Sunday School curriculum has always been as varied as the different verities of apple trees now available in my new Gurney seed catalogue.
My point is this: The Gospel Project does not represent a departure from the way our curriculum is produced. In actuality, it is a reflection of the way our curriculum has always been produced. It does reflect SOP.
It is my opinion that this current debate is not reflective of a change in policy at Lifeway, but rather a reaction due to the current sensitivity in our convention relating to Calvinism.
Well done CB. Not bad for a southerner. 😉
Well, thank you Bill Mac.
I find this debate a little strange for many reasons.
CB,
The only thing about this new SS material, is that there doesnt seem to be a lot of variety…not so far, anyway. It seems to be very heavy leaning towards one point of view…does it not? Which begs the question, why? Why is our SS producing entity doing this? And, if they’re gonna offer this to churches of the more reformed nature, then why dont they call it something that would warn churches that are not reformed, that this new material is what it looks like its gonna be?
David
Vol,
I understand your point. And maybe, times being what they are, some considerations about contemporary issues within the populace of the SBC should have been taken to account in the planning of this endeavor.
Yet, please understand my point. There has been no real change in the approach to the production of curriculum here. I am sure, this project is within the guidelines approved by board trustees from years gone by for the development and production of Sunday School curriculum.
Thom Rainer and the administration of LifeWay are not a bunch of renegades to the SOP of the board. If they were, someone on the board would be wanting to fire them as is the case with another entity head this morning.
There is a trustee oversight committee over all curriculum publications at the board. I served on it for 8 years. This project had to pass review of that committee before getting the “green light” for publication. The process is long. Ed Stetzer and Trevin Wax did not just wake up one morning and set this thing in motion.
That is my point. BTW, Calvinists have always served at Lifeway, even before it became LifeWay. And BTW, I voted against that name change also. 😉
Thanks for the welcome and sticking up for me last week, CB.
I’m not saying that the GP is a change in the way the curriculum is produced. As a matter of fact, the layout and plan of the lessons look great. I’m only addressing the (possible) doctrinal content. Given the people who have been publicly identified with assembling the content, the percentage of Calvinists (100%) is higher than the percentage openly serving SBC churches or entities (75%).
Based on those numbers alone, it would seem that one’s soteriological position is more important than open denominational affiliation. I know the numbers are incomplete, but I’m only going on the information the GP has made available.
Jim G.
Jim G.,
Glad to be of service. The bill is in the mail. 🙂
Seriously Jim G.,
Read my response to Vol. Interact with that response if you will. Maybe we can come to a place of understanding without making my friend Ed Stetzer and this new kid on the block, Trevin Wax, out to be outlaws doing their own thing.
CB,
I’m not trying to make Ed Stetzer and Trevin Wax into outlaws, but I am left scratching my head on this whole deal. I also know that there’s always been Calvinists at Lifeway. Fine. No problem. My problem is why the seemingly heavy slant towards Reformed, SS material; and why arent your average, regular, ole Churches being warned about the content? That gives me an itch behind my left ear that scratching just wont resolve.
David
PS. Who knows? Maybe the next curriculum offered will be a Gospel Centered Project by non-5 pointers with all non-reformed writers and advisors…and, we’ll call it the “Doctrines of Grace.” You think that’ll happen?
🙂
one other thing, CB. Maybe Ed Stetzer will ask Peter Lumpkins to head up this new, SS material called “The Doctrines of Grace.”
Maybe?
David
🙂
Vol,
Let me quickly state that I “know” you are not trying to make Ed and Trevin Wax out to be “outlaws.” Although, I do think some of these folks here, feel that you are. I think that to be short sighted. BTW, I do not think Jim G. is trying to paint them as such either.
My cause is to defend LifeWay from any accusation that a “Calvinist conspiracy” is in the air within the administration. I just do not believe that to be true.
In addition, let me say that I know that Peter Lumpkins is an excellent writer of SS curriculum. That may be a surprise to some who simply don’t like him and are always making these debates personal. That is sad.
In my opinion, Pete would make a great addition to any SS curriculum endeavor at LifeWay. Maybe he will be part of one in the future. Our curriculum would benefit from his presence and input.
Hi CB,
I don’t think anyone is an outlaw or renegade. I know far less than you about all the hoops that must be jumped through in order to make such a project a reality.
I’m just pointing out that there seems to be a Calvinistic-leaning monopoly on the advisory board AND creators of the content on this project – at least the ones that we know of. And Trevin did say above that non-Calvinists were involved. None are listed as being involved, though as I have said before, I know the public list is not exhaustive.
It would make me feel better about it all if I knew people of the caliber of David Allen, Steve Lemke, or Bruce Little were also putting together answers on topics like election, grace, and theodicy.
Jim G.
Jim G.,
I want to make a statement here that may get me in trouble. That’s OK.
The men you mentioned are all good guys. I know one of them and am familiar with the other two.
But let me ask you something if I may? Did you reference them basically because they are not of 5 point leanings related to Calvinism? Or, did you mention them because they are seminary professors? Or possibly, is it because they are both?
Hi CB,
It’s a little of both, but more because I know these men are not 5-pointers. I’m going to reply to Bart below, and I think our discussion will make more sense given what I say there. I just don’t want to type it twice. I sliced my index finger open this morning and I’m on an economy of keystrokes.
Jim G.
Jim G.,
Therefore the conclusion should be that…?
Also, James MacDonald is a top-seller on Lifeway’s website. The site lists:
Does anyone care about the theology and teachings of these authors? Why/why not?
I’m sorry, Mark. I’m afraid I missed your point.
Jim G.
At the least this will be the most scrutinized curriculum in SBC history and Stetzer, Wax et all surely know it. Let’s watch it.
LifeWay likes to, must, sell stuff. A significant number of SBC pastors are Calvinists. Here is a market segment to be addressed.
I have one eyebrow raised on this.
Like Spock? I never could get the hang of it. I can do the finger thing though.
Is it possible to request of Trevin some more ‘samples’, especially concerning how ‘soteriology’ will be presented ?
Perhaps doing that might allay some concerns.
Also, let me just state again…I love everybody. I’m not anti-Calvinist. I’m not trying to be mean and sneaky. I just have honest questions about this new material, due to the advisors and writers which have been selected to produce this new material.
One more thing…I am anti-aggressive, obsessed Calvinist. But, I love my Calvinist Brothers and Sisters in Christ. I love my Arminian Brothers and Sisters in Christ.
Just thought yall needed to know….
David
Lifeway is selling The Shack, the NIV 2011 (the opinion of the messengers notwithstanding), and the Covered in Prayer Snuggie. Personally, I’m encouraged and refreshed that the present Lifeway controversy concerns something as substantive and orthodox as the extent of the atonement and the nature of election.
Trevin, your way to end this thread is easy. In the original post you said that there are authors who are not Calvinists. You just need to get all of the authors who deny Calvinism to go on the record: “I’m a Gospel Project author, and I here is my opinion of each of the points of Calvinism.” I’ll bet Dave would agree to host that post for you. How’s anybody going to contradict that?
To answer the question that way—by providing people with MORE information than they’re looking for—would be very wise PR because it bespeaks transparency. Every time somebody comes on a blog like this where the contrast is between a vague, “Well, I think we’ve probably got SOMEBODY on there who isn’t a Calvinist” on the one hand, and then a “Here’s the exact list of every author, the church where he serves, and his public relationship with Calvinism,” then it deepens the impression that critics of this curriculum are the ones giving out the most information while Lifeway is trying to hide something. I’m not alleging that such is the case, just that exchanges like that leave precisely that impression on readers.
If it were me, I would want to be able to give out so much information about this that Jim G would never be able to “scoop” me again.
For the record, I don’t care whether Lifeway is launching a sort of Particular Baptist curriculum. We wouldn’t buy it, but I have close friends who might. In fact, if you can talk everybody at Lifeway into honoring the messengers’ wishes vis-à-vis the NIV2011, I’ll drive to W Tennessee and personally throw a Jerry Lawler headlock on Volfan until he agrees not to say anything negative every again about The Gospel Project.
I don’t think it would make much difference to those who have made their decisions based on their prejudices without any evidence.
But unless you are calling Trevin a liar, he would not have that information, since he said that no one was asked their views of Calvinism when they were asked to participate.
I’m not sure your representation of Trevin’s answers was accurate or fair.
“But unless you are calling Trevin a liar, he would not have that information, since he said that no one was asked their views of Calvinism when they were asked to participate.”
Dave, That is a point I would like to take up shortly. But first, I must go visit a lady in the hospital. She is a member of our church. I have never asked her if she is a Calvinist. She probably does not know what a Calvinist is. But she does have a great testimony for Jesus and she has been an evangelistic SS teacher for years in a church that “Southern Seminary” deemed as a church in the top four percentile for church growth for the last three years. Weird huh? 🙂
Not calling anybody a liar, Dave. That’s ratcheting up the tone quite a bit. I was presuming that he would go and ask them.
The representation was accurate. Trevin’s answer was that he didn’t know. Jim G comes in with a list of specific names and details about their churches, etc. That’s bad PR.
Bart, it is not my intent to ratchet anything up. But I am growing less patient with the tone of many of the comments on this stream.
You said,
“Personally, I’m encouraged and refreshed that the present Lifeway controversy concerns something as substantive and orthodox as the extent of the atonement and the nature of election.”
Trevin made it clear that the extent of the atonement and the nature of election were not part of the curriculum. Was he telling the truth? Why would you assert that the extent of the atonement and the nature of election are the current debate when Trevin made it clear that they are not?
Notwithstanding your disclaimer, you raised this issue, “…it deepens the impression that critics of this curriculum are the ones giving out the most information while Lifeway is trying to hide something.” If LifeWay is trying to hide something, wouldn’t that be dishonest? Frankly, if I find out that Trevin was not speaking honestly, I will be deeply offended. Was he trying to pull the wool over my eyes or represent TGP as something it is not? That is a serious thing in my eyes. And your intimation that such might be happening is also a serious thing in my eyes.
You said, “For the record, I don’t care whether Lifeway is launching a sort of Particular Baptist curriculum.” Yet, Trevin stated very clearly that he is Amaryldian, not a 5-pointer. Is he telling the truth? Why would one who does not believe in particular redemption produce a Particular Baptist curriculum? Why would you raise the specter of Particular Redemption here?
I am sorry if I am escalating the tone. That is not my intent. I have a lot of respect for Trevin and I appreciated him giving this interview. I guess I am losing my patience at what I see are unfair representations of what I felt were honest words in the interview.
I think I’m going to take David Worley’s cue and walk away from this before I lose my cool with someone.
Dave,
Whatever the content of the curriculum is, the CONTROVERSY is over Calvinism (which is what my words said).
Whether Lifeway is trying to hide anything or not, the IMPRESSION left by that kind of exchange is that they are (which is what my words said).
I used the words “Particular Baptist” to find the most FAVORABLE wording that I might use. Remember, unlike some people, finding a phrase with the word “Baptist” in it would make me more likely to support it. “Calvinists” are not all Baptists. “Reformed” people certainly are not. Trevin insisted that he is Baptist ahead of his Amyraldianism. I replied by using the most popular and time-honored phrase describing Baptists who are Calvinists.
My foolishness was in entering the comment stream at all. If I had quoted “Mary had a little lamb” in this particular thread it would have been construed wrongly. You guys were so fired up before I ever got here.
Hi Dave,
I’m not calling anyone a liar either (been down that road recently), but there is something that perhaps would have been a good follow-up question with Trevin.
He said no one was asked their views of Calvinism. I would want to simply ask him why not. I mean, this is probably the most divisive issue in the theological world of the SBC. The GP is about creating a theologically-robust, Christ-centered curriculum. Wouldn’t one’s view on the issue of Calvinism, which frames one’s response to theological method, providence, anthropology, hamartiology, Christology, soteriology (precisely here the ordo salutis, election, reprobation, grace, atonement, and perseverance) have some important bearing on how one both understands and teaches the grand narrative of Scripture? To just revert to a default of the BFM here seems overly naive, given the sensitive nature of the conflict within the SBC, wouldn’t you say?
I accept Trevin’s word that these content contributors were not asked their position on Calvinism. But that begs another query, did they need to be asked their positions, or was it known ahead of time? I mean, I think this is an honest and fair question. Of the 8 listed content contributors, Wax and Wilson are on TGC (with lots of TGC folks on the advisory board, so a prior doctrinal relationship would be established); Leeman is 9Marks (again, a TGC connection), Ashley and Ziafat are directly connected to Chandler (on the advisory board); Sanchez openly identifies with 9Marks, TGC, and Desiring God; George, though a scholar in his own right, has a very famous father. I don’t know the Suh connection, but I don’t think one’s doctrinal stance would have to even be asked, given the advisory board’s prior knowledge of at least 7 of the 8 men.
I think more clarity there would be helpful.
Jim G.
Jim,
Trevin did not tell a lie… “He said no one was asked their views of Calvinism.”
“I don’t think one’s doctrinal stance would have to even be asked, given the advisory board’s prior knowledge of at least 7 of the 8 men.”
Add to this list the majority position of the 11 earlier…
You said, “I think more clarity there would be helpful.”
I say, it is as clear as it can be.
><>”
Bob Hadley,
How is prior knowledge that which constitutes a lie?
The question was not do you know, but “did you ask.”
That does not make the guy a liar.
Bob Hadley, do you believe there have been Calvinist SS curriculum writers at LifeWay in the past?
Have you written for LifeWay in the past?
CB…
I said in PLAIN ENGLISH that Trevin did not tell a lie. Let me reword it… he told it like it is… he said what he meant.
“No one was asked their views of Calvinism.”
There are 19 folks identified who are directly associated with this project. OK… none of them were asked about being calvinists… I get it.
I was simply quoting Jim.
I said there was nothing that needed to be cleared up.
That is still true.
Birds of a feather seem to flock together.
><>”
Bob Hadley,
I apologize. I poorly read your comment. You did not state in that comment that Trevin Wax was/is a liar. As far as I can see you have not stated as much in any other comment in this thread either. Again, I trust you accept my apology for this carelessness on my part.
Jim G.,
It is true that Christian George has a famous father. It is also true that the institution of which his father is president produces graduates of varied soteriological persuasions. Alabama is full of pastors who graduated from Beeson Divinity School. Thus far, Alabama has not been overran with Calvinists trying to take over Southern Baptist churches.
Hi CB,
Yes, both statements are true. I never said Timothy George is about making Calvinists. I did say he is famous and influential. And the elder George is a Reformation historian who is a Calvinist, if I am not mistaken.
But the younger George can stand on his own two feet.
Jim G.
In fact, if you can talk everybody at Lifeway into honoring the messengers’ wishes vis-à-vis the NIV2011, I’ll drive to W Tennessee and personally throw a Jerry Lawler headlock on Volfan until he agrees not to say anything negative every again about The Gospel Project.
I’ll second that motion and I’m only 4 hours away. Just sayin’….
Hold on a Memphis minute….I dont want any headlocks being put on me! espeicially a Jerry Lawler headlock…ouch! lol Joe, dont encourage this!!!! lol
Seriously, I think I’m gonna bow out of this whole conversation. I have given waaaaaay too much time to this, already. Yall have a good day.
David
Wait, David. Don’t bow out until we’ve gotten the NIV2011 concession. We’ve just started negotiating! You can’t quit now! 😉
I dont want a Jerry Lawler headlock…and, I sure dont want a Plowboy Frazier leg drop!!!
And, Bart, I…like you…wish that the NIV 2011 would be used for starting a good fire in people’s fireplaces. So, why is Lifeway Bookstores selling it? after the SBC has spoken? And, why in the world would they continue selling the Shack? especially after hearing from so many that its full of heresy?
I dont know.
David
Bart,
Let me remind you, although I am sure you already know, so I mostly state this for those who do not, the selling of the things you mention is under the administration of the “books stores.” The Gospel Project is under another administration of LifeWay.
BTW, I don’t like the fact that the Shack is in our stores. Remember it was me who fought to get rid of your cousin Benny Hinn and his heretical garbage some folks in weird Christian circles call theological books.
CB,
I know. I’m not questioning your doctrinal fidelity here, nor that of anybody in this conversation. I’m just trying to give everybody a bit of perspective here. Divisiveness over Calvinism isn’t our top thing to be worried about. It’s not in the top ten.
CB,
I’m in Lifeway right now….do you want the orange, prayer snuggie? or, the red one?
Also, they’ve got some nice, Catholic/Episcopalian type shirts…lots of different colors and sizes and every thing. Can I get you a purple one? I think I’m gonna get the black one and a gray one.
David
PS. YOu know I’m just funnin’ with you, Brother.
Vol,
You stated, “PS. You know I’m just funnin’ with you, Brother.”
I am glad you made that statement. It proves a point here.
You are right. I do know you were “just funnin’ with me. I know that because I know you personally. We have a good history even if born in a hard time during the IMB wars.
Therein lies one of the hard things about communication on a blog thread. Some of us actually “do know each other.”
We go back a few years. One example: When the IMB wars broke out, Tim Rogers, Ben Cole, cb and several other folks had known each other for several years. Yet, when the issues got hot, we were of different perspectives and we fought it out.
During that time many other people who became involved, got to know each other personally. There was you, Alan Cross, Bob Cleveland, Marty Duren, Bart Barber, Art Rogers, Dave Miller, David Rogers, Peter Lumpkins, Tim Guthrie, Les Puryer, Wes Kenny, and literally a hundred or more who, not only interacted on Baptist blog threads, but also met in person and got to know each other in a personal manner and a reality set itsself in place within our minds and hearts.
That reality was that Satan had not really become incarnate in any one mentioned here or in countless others.
From that perspective we all have been able to, thus far, debate issues with both agreement and disagreement without drawing lines in the sand and condemning one another to the deeper parts of hell for all eternity.
Now, a new group has appeared on the scene. Yet, because Baptist blogging has aged, there are not many opportunities for people to actually get to know one another beyond the threads of a blog post and that is rather sad.
Now here we are in this little set-to and I see that Bart and Dave are kinda torqued up here. I for one wish it was not that way, but it is what it is.
Nonetheless, I wish that Bart and Dave would enter this thread again because this is an issue that is worthy of dialogue. They are both knowledgeable men and the debate could be more productive than to become just another TULIP fight.
Dave and Bart are entirely reconciled.
Bart,
That is great news. But I really would like to hear you break out singing “Mary Had A Little Lamb.” I think that would be a high moment for us all. 🙂
You, on the other hand, CB….
Dave,
An even better thing would be for you and bart to sing “Mary Had A Little Lamb” as a duet on YouTube. Now that would really be a high moment!
Okay, okay, time out for a ‘Mary had a little lamb’ story . . .
“. . . . when the light had dimmed to a glow and the voices were only an echo, there in their manger, they saw the Baby, and their eyes went wide with wonder. The animals murmured but would not approach until the woman beckoned.
Then, one by one, they came forward. All, that is, except the lamb, which was only a baby itself and still terribly afraid. Forgotten by the others, it trembled in a corner and tried to hide beneath the hay.
But the Baby in the manger was trembling, too. The cold of the night had returned, and the Baby started to shiver. When the animals saw this, they huddled closer about the crib. The man took off his cloak and made a blanket of it, but the cloak was thin and threadbare and provided little warmth.
The woman held the Baby to her breast. He shivered still, and she began to weep.
And the lamb, which knew what weeping meant,
lifted itself from the hay.
Though it was still afraid, it made its way among the legs of the bigger beasts, until it stood beside the woman, and it laid its head against her knee.
And the softest of hands reached down and stroked its wool. And the gentlest of hands picked it up and tucked it into the manger straw, and tucked the Baby in beside it, and covered them both with the cloak. The Baby snuggled near, and smiled, and closed His eyes.
And the lamb was very glad it had learned to cry without making a sound. Because it was crying now and didn’t want to wake the Child.
But the lamb wasn’t crying because it was sad.
It was crying because, at last,
it didn’t feel alone. Or afraid. Or unloved.
Then the lamb closed its eyes, too.
And the woman sang a lullaby.”
Hi Bart,
I believe you hit the nail on the head. Lifeway is creating a new SS curriculum package (that is produced and laid out very well, I might add) that is “a Christ-centered Bible study resource that deeply examines the grand narrative of Scripture and how it transforms the lives of those it touches.” (from the GP website)
The Calvinist is going to view this grand narrative differently than the non-Calvinist. Now, if the information I have provided above is any indication, the chances seem good that the Calvinist viewpoint of the grand narrative will be emphasized. If this curriculum is going to take a Reformed slant , then the GP should publicly state that, just to be honest and transparent. I have no problems at all with Lifeway selling and promoting a Reformed-leaning SS curriculum as long as they let folks know it is Reformed-leaning. That just seems like good, full disclosure to me.
From what I have seen, every indication is that this curriculum is going to be Reformed-leaning. All of the people publicly identified on it are Reformed-leaning. Calvinists have a better percentage representation than Southern Baptists of those who are listed as working on the project. Yet there is nothing in the promotional material that I have seen that reflects any sort of Reformed leanings. That is why I agree if non-Calvinists worked on this project, it would be nice to know who they are and their role – especially since the GP looks as though it will be marketed to all Southern Baptists.
Jim G.
To be fair, every indication, except actual content, which is of course what matters.
I have every faith that our best non-Calvinist scholars in the SBC could create a Gospel centered curriculum like this without denigrating Calvinism. Further, with a few exceptions, I believe that is what they would do.
But that same confidence is not afforded Calvinists by non-Calvinists. By my reading, Calvinists are either too sneaky and deceptive to produce a soteriologically neutral curriculum, or too stupid.
Hi Bill,
The only content I have seen is what is available on the GP website.
I truly and indeed hope you are right. I want you to be right more than I can say. I don’t want to be right on this one. I want cooperation and transparency.
However, if you go and read what some of these men have written or hear what they have said on theological subjects already, those writings and sermons are a long way from “soteriologically neutral.” I also see little reason to make me think they will adopt a position of soteriological neutrality in the present or near future.
Jim G.
So, let me ask this, and please take it in the spirit it is written – as observations from an outsider (to the Baptist tradition, not to Christianity)
I have read in these comments that if a bunch of non-Calvinists got together and created this curriculum, all the Calvinists here would cry foul.
Let me ask it this way – since many non-Calvinists here are “concerned” about the Calvinistic slant of the authors, would you non-Calvinists be just as concerned about a non-Calvinist slant of the authors?
In other words, if you feel your concern of a “reformed’ slant is justified, based on “the curriculum should be Baptist”, shouldn’t you also consider the concern of Calvinists of a “non-reformed” slant to be equally justified? Would you likewise be concerned with a non-reformed slant based on “the curriculum should be Baptist”?
I read this point in the BFM2K:
“A. Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus. It is a change of heart wrought by the Holy Spirit through conviction of sin, to which the sinner responds in repentance toward God and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance and faith are inseparable experiences of grace. ”
What? Repentance and faith are responses to regeneration? Hmmm…regeneration preceded faith?
But I also read that “Regeneration, or the new birth, is a work of God’s grace whereby believers become new creatures in Christ Jesus.” Hmmm…you can be a believer but not become a new creation until you are regenerated (i.e. faith precedes regeneration)
So, if an entire curriculum was developed that taught that regeneration precedes faith, it could fit the BFM2K, and therefore would be Baptist.
If an entire curriculum was developed that taught that faith precedes regeneration, it could fit the BFM2K, and therefore would be Baptist.
From an outsider’s perspective though, one Baptist “distinctive” I see time and time again is your tendency to eat your own. You seem to be so concerned with following the BFM2K. But, the BFM can be easily read to affirm “regeneration precedes faith”. So, 11 guys get together who all happen to believe that, but say their primary goal is to uphold the BFM2K. So what is the response? They are castigated for believing the BFM2K instead of being applauded for trying to conform to it.
I don’t get it.
You have made it a point not to make this a point, so what’s the point of arguing about it?
Some of this actually sounds very Roman Catholic (speaking as one who is now an apostate from that tradition.) As a Catholic child, we had CCD (“Confraternity of Christian Doctrine” for those of you who have no Catholic background) classes on Wednesday evenings. During those classes, we were only allowed to read the New American Bible because it had Catholic notes. We only prayed Catholic prayers. We were only allowed to read Catholic texts with Nihil Obstats and Imprimaturs for study materials. And we did that, not only to teach Catholic tradition, but to hold up the idea that only Catholics had the true gospel.
It seems that some of you are saying functionally the exact same things about your “CCD” classes. From people who claim to be Christian first, I am hearing “You can only use sources from Baptist authors. And not only that – only certain Baptist authors are allowed.”
That approach is totally acceptable, by the way, if the goal of the class is to teach “What Baptists Believe”, or more specifically “What our local Baptist church believes.” But it is totally unacceptable if the goal of the class is to teach the gospel. Unless you believe that only Baptists possess the gospel, or that there is some “Baptist Gospel” that is better than any “non-Baptist Gospel” – and some comments here are dangerously close to saying that.
Now, I’m all for denominations – I don’t believe God made us homogenous. I agree that distinctives are good, in fact, I believe they are healthy to local bodies. However, when the distinctives get in the way of the gospel, that’s where I have a severe problem. If you elevate the BFM2K to the point of inspired Scripture, then congratulations – the SBC has just become the evangelical equivalent of the Roman Magesterium.
Finding your pope should prove to be an interesting journey…
“Finding your pope should prove to be an interesting journey…”
Actually, we have several. :o)
Maybe these two excerpys from Ed Stetzer are appropriate here:
“I’ve always been fascinated by the Baptist bogeyman. Bogeymen are not real dangers, but ones we use to scare one another, often distracting us from real danger. There are real challenges in our churches and the convention—theological and otherwise—but bogeymen distract us from the real issues.”
“Now, the new bogeyman is Calvinism. Critics are labeling people as Calvinists and Calvinist “sympathizers” (yes, they are using that scare word). Yet, most SBC Calvinists (about 10 percent of pastors and 30 percent of recent seminary graduates) affirm the current Baptist Faith and Message, want to reach people for Christ, and desire to cooperate together in SBC life.”
The first two “bogeymen” he cites were “Purpose Driven” men and “emergent.”
Worth a read. http://betweenthetimes.com/2012/02/09/the-baptist-bogeyman/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BetweenTheTimes+%28Between+The+Times%29
Les, Is he suggesting PDL and Emergent are not a problem? I will admit PDL, and it’s myriad of spin off’s, brought in a ton of money for Lifeway, though. Interestingly enough… that his bogeyman category of “Neo” Calvinism is shared with PDL and Emergent. Ironic, huh? A fad, perhaps?
Lydia, I would suggest just hopping over and reading. I would paste in here, but it wouldn’t have the same effect.
I think his point is one bogeyman, Warren, just now spoke at SWBS and is more accepted and the other, Emergents, turned out not to be all that prevalent. And in both cases, while there were some legitimate concerns, the SBC lost people over it and runs the risk of the same thing happening with Calvinists who “affirm the current Baptist Faith and Message, want to reach people for Christ, and desire to cooperate together in SBC life.”
Les, Warren just reinvents himself depending on the audience and what is cool at the moment. Just like Desiring God conference. I am still reeling over his announcement a few years back that Christians are treated well in Syria. And there are a ton more examples of such things. The guy is dangerous and is a bogeyman. I am sad he is speaking at any of our seminaries. But I realize I am in the minority.
Lydia, I’m not defending Warren. I was simply noting the “bogeyman” points Ed was making. Maybe he is not a “bogeyman,” but poses a “real danger.” But, is Calvinism a “real danger” to the SBC? That is the thrust of his post, I think.
Short version of a very long article–I *think* that his point was people made a big deal over something that ended up not being a real problem in the SBC. Of course, this from the guy who compared TD Jakes to Apollos and said “What if Priscilla and Acquilla had not taken Apollos aside to teach him?” so his point is taken with a grain of salt. “Grain” being a euphemism for “A dumptruck load”.
“Short version of a very long article–I *think* that his point was people made a big deal over something that ended up not being a real problem in the SBC.”
Agree Joe. BTW, where did you find Ed comparing Jakes to Apollo? I looked and could not locate it.
Thanks,
Obviously “excerpys” should read “excerpts.”
Trevin Wax speculated that condemnation of The Gospel Project would come from those who see a conspiracy (plentiful here) and those who think Calvinism is the gospel (you can see that here http://5ptsalt.com/2012/02/09/trevin-wax-what-the-sbc-will-be-teaching-you-all/).
When both extremes start firing away at you at the same time, you’re probably in the middle. That’s right about where you’ll find the BFM, and, from what it appears, The Gospel Project.
Yeah, I read that article – he linked here. Not sure who he is, but he is everything that makes non-Calvinists suspicious of Calvinists. I hope that guy isn’t Southern Baptist!
He’s on the blog roll here, actually.
I have communicated with Jared Wilson, one of the contributors of the Gospel Project and I will share (with his permission) what he told me.
1. There were no directives to make this a reformed curriculum.
2. The directives were: Make the lessons Christ-centered (as opposed to either theological/historical information dumps or heavily applicational moralism). Tie lessons into the greater gospel narrative of the Scriptures: Creation/Fall/Redemption/Consummation.
3. The only goal is to introduce gospel-centered SS lessons to SBC churches.
4. The contributors were cautioned about over-quoting Calvin/Luther, et.al.
5. He was confident that the contributors would produce a final product that would be welcome to the average SBCer.
6. He is confident that Wax and Stetzer have shaped a curriculum that any SBC church can use without fear of “reformed osmosis” occurring.
I don’t have much hope of this information making much difference, but I thought it was helpful.
Well Bill Mac, with those quotes the speculations should be over. But probably not.
I think this is great, Bill. I really do. I’ve voiced my concerns, and I hope this is the way it is. If points 5 and 6 are really what comes out of the curriculum, then it will be a success.
Thanks for sharing. And don’t be so pessimistic!
Jim G.
Jim G.,
If this does not come to reality and the curriculum does become an entrance for “reformed osmosis” to occur I think the trustees of LifeWay will pull it before my friend Bart Barber could finish singing the song, “Mary Had A Little Lamb” which he referenced earlier.
Do you think so? Even if it is turning a profit?
I wouldn’t vote against a curriculum just because it was Calvinistic. It ought to be identified clearly as such, but I wouldn’t vote to stop selling it.
And long before I were inclined to do something about a Calvinistic Sunday School curriculum, I’d be inclined to do something about some of the other issues that I’ve mentioned. It’s hard for me to imagine the perspective from which you take a hard line on this but are comfortable with The Shack.
Bart,
Maybe I am missing the point here, but if you look back to comment #223 I stated that I did not like our stores selling the Shack.
In addition, I do think the trustees would pull a curriculum if it began to cause a problem such as has been promoted as a possibility here. Trustees in the past have been willing to pull material that was causing a problem.
Good thing Jared responded with 6 points instead of 5. 🙂
Perhaps what the opponents of this curriculum ought to do is contact DOMs and local Baptist conventions and papers, and warn them of the plot to turn them into Calvinists, explaining that the average pastor, SS superintendant, and pew sitter are probably too ignorant to realize they are being indoctrinated.
I bet if some of you got to meet Trevin and just talk for a few minutes like I got to at T4G in 2010, you’d at least slightly change any negative views of his answers. He is a nice and humble guy. I appreciated the conversation. The demeanor with which he carries himself online is the same as in person.
Hi all,
Two last burrs in my saddle…
One, why is James MacDonald on a Lifeway advisory board? This is the same James MacDonald who claimed that congregational church polity is from the devil – that’s right – it is a tool of Satan used to derail real church leadership. Go ahead and google it. Check it for yourself. It is one thing to disagree with congregationalism. To call it a tool of Satan is pretty blatant. Since congregational polity is possibly the defining hallmark of Baptist ecclesiology, what is someone who believes Baptist polity is demonic doing on an advisory board for an SBC project? I’d like an answer for that one.
Second, and this is a response to Ed Stetzer’s column over at BTT, Calvinism for me is not a bogeyman. I am an academic theologian who loves Christ and the church. I see with precise clarity that there are two competing camps of interpreting the “grand narrative” of Scripture. Roughly, these two camps are the Augustinian tradition and the free will tradition. They go back to the fifth century. The tension between them has reared its head multiple times in church history (the Synod of Orange, Rimini vs, Aureol, Erasmus vs. Luther, Dutch Reformed vs. Remonstrants, etc.). It is happening again today in the SBC.
I am neither an alarmist nor uninformed. I have (what I see as) legitimate theological and ecclesio-political reservations about the New Calvinist movement and its SBC leaders. Mohler can say what he wants, but when someone who disagrees pushes back, they are marginalized. I have brought up some legitimate questions about the GP curriculum, and today its editor writes a “bogeyman” article. I would love to discuss the philosophical and theological nuances of both Christian traditions, from both a biblical and a historical perspective, but blogs are a difficult venue for such a task. It is my opinion that Baptists, of all people, should welcome both traditions, since they have both been with us since the beginning. But that is getting increasingly difficult to do in this primarily politically charged convention.
Jim G.
Jim: Fair points. In my opinion, for one taking the non-Calvinist side on this issue, you seem to be the most thoughtful and the least paranoid. (I realize that’s a backhanded compliment but it really is a compliment.) I doubt you and folks like you are the target of Stetzer’s piece).
Jim,
I agree with your final paragraph here. If Lifeway would just label this project a “Reformed Perspective” I would not have a single objection to it. “Perspective” does not mean it is necessarily a Reformed project. I believe it is a fair addition to the title especially given the almost exclusive choice of writers and advisors, etc.
The SBC is embroiled in a politically charged environment that is not going to go away. At stake is the direction this old stately ship is going to sail in the future. Everyone here knows that this is the case. Many here, do not mind and support the direction the rudder is facing. That is part of the process. It is one of the difficult aspects of being so diverse. It will work itself out.
While I have been criticized for being so critical of what I see taking place, I am trying as best I know how to be as fair as I can, given the information I have to go on and things that I see taking place that I do not approve of. I clearly recognize the responsibility of those who disagree with me to express their concerns and opinions accordingly and welcome and respect those opinions. if I did not, I would not be posting here.
It is helpful to read those who have differing opinions, or else the whole concept of blogging would be a waste of everyone’s time. All the Calvinists would just gather at “The Voices” and rant and rave about the non-Calvinists that gather to rant and rave at Peter’s Place. The interaction I think can be helpful to some degree. However, this propensity to refuse to acknowledge a dissenting opinion and perspective and marginalize the one who is making it, it petty and unbecoming to everything we should be here to do.
I have made statements that fall into that category as well and have apologized for doing so and will apologize again. I would love nothing more than to find a comfortable balance here but I do not believe that is possible and I also am becoming increasingly more aware of the fact that the Calvinist agenda may well now be so far along that the convention’s future will no doubt look much different than it did yesterday. That is a compliment, for the record.
I will continue to express my opinion and solutions as I see them to avoid what I believe will be the inevitable change that appears to be coming. Do I have a crystal ball, no. Do I believe everyone always says what they mean and mean what they say, no. Sorry; no one else here does either. So with that being said,
May God lead and guide and direct the future of the SBC and may He maintain the glory in all we undertake to do. The SBC needs God; God does not need the SBC.
><>”
I admit to being impatient. And Jim, I do apologize for not using the word liar but a clear insinuation that you were lying. Although I do believe you are grieviously misinformed on a few things, I think you do believe what you say. And I should not have insinuated strongly that you are spouting intentional lies, For that I do apologize. But let me explain my position a bit.
I am simply sick and tired of the infighting. I am tired of it because I would love to see us unite and get down to the business of giving the Gospel to the nations who are dying minute by minute. People need Christ. They need to hear the message of Christ crucified and their need of a Savior who loves us with a deep, unconditional love. I want to see more in heaven than in hell.
If we don’t do it, make no mistake God will use and has used others. But I want us as Southern Baptists to be the one he uses. The one thing Anabaptists got so right, was believers baptism. Immersion. I would like to see Baptisms go up and not just for the numbers, but for the right reason. Pure Christ centered conversion. We are so focused on Baptist Identity and the preservation of the name Southern that the focus keeps getting off of Christ and the giving of His words, and onto these other things.
I have gone to too many funerals the past 4 years. One, I wonder to this day is he in heaven or hell? This person was 24 years of age when he died. I had prayed for him daily since the day he began dating my daughter and I gave him the message of Christ and my deep love for him was strong. He died unexpectedly 4 years ago, after having 3 children with my youngest daughter. Children who are my life. He allowed me to take them to church, although he did not go, stating there was only one Baptist church he would attend. He is now dead and I don’t know if he is in heaven or hell because I don’t know if he made the decision for Christ to be his Savior. Meanwhile for the last 6 years and more of Southern Baptist life, it seems we focus on who to shove out. Who to fight against.
Another young man who I have knew since he was in High School and friends with my other daughter committed suicide this past summer at the age of 31. He was an avowed atheist. I too gave him the message of Christ as we became close and in fact attended RN school together, ate lunch together, went to practicums together. We lost touch and now he is dead of a self inflicted gun shot wound. I am impatient that we put aside the other stuff that doesn’t matter in light of all of this and get the message out of Christ to the world before another dies and goes to an eternity in hell.
We are not known for our evangelism and love of people, we are known for hate and fighting and exclusion. And what is the cost? What is the reason? Time is fleeting.
For that I do apologize.
Anyone with class, character, and honor would have ended the sentence there.
But….
Case in point.
Hi Debbie,
Of course I believe what I say. If I didn’t believe it, I wouldn’t say it.
Obviously, none of what you wrote after your first paragraph had anything to do with what I said that offended you. You were offended that I produced two quotes from John Calvin that showed he had murderous intentions toward Servetus before his execution, and took full credit for the execution after the fact. I gave you the sources for the quotes as you asked. Instead of acknowledging that Calvin said such things, even when provided with the original sources for those quotes, you chose instead to stubbornly call me a liar. You say you are tired of fighting. In the thread from a couple of weeks ago, which one of us was spouting fightin’ words – me with quotes and facts, or you with accusations that were empty, slanderous, and baseless?
CB was right about me. I do have a PhD in systematic theology from SEBTS. While my education makes me neither superior nor immune from being wrong, I would not endanger my name and my reputation by throwing out spurious facts that someone could easily verify as false. Today I have gone from being a liar to being “grievously misinformed.” I guess that is a step in a good direction. But that is an inaccurate statement. I may make lapses in judgment. I may make inaccurate inferences. I may even be just plain wrong sometimes. But – and I say this in real self-searching – I am hardly grievously misinformed.
In short, I accept your apology. I do not accept your rationalization. In the future, just disagree without getting personal. If you cannot do that, maybe blogging good for your spiritual health.
Jim G.
Meant to say “isn’t good” in the last sentence
Jim G.
We also need to get deeper into Bible study, which is what I think Trevin and team are doing. So many complained and rightfully so that the Lifeway lessons were fluff. Lifeway has listened and are putting together lessons that are supposedly deeper in their content. I am one who did not care when the lessons were put together by non-Calvinists before, I don’t care now. I just want them to encourage us to get our Bibles and highlighters out and dig deep into the scriptures. So let’s quit wasting time and get to it. Too much time has already passed.
To those who take issue with cooperation among SBC and non-SBC persons and other entities (i.e., the non-Southern baptists on the advisory board and the Methodists to which Trevin expresses brotherhood and accommodation) — from the Baptist Faith and Message 200, section XIV. “Cooperation”:
Christ’s people should, as occasion requires, organize such associations and conventions as may best secure cooperation for the great objects of the Kingdom of God. Such organizations have no authority over one another or over the churches. They are voluntary and advisory bodies designed to elicit, combine, and direct the energies of our people in the most effective manner. Members of New Testament churches should cooperate with one another in carrying forward the missionary, educational, and benevolent ministries for the extension of Christ’s Kingdom. Christian unity in the New Testament sense is spiritual harmony and voluntary cooperation for common ends by various groups of Christ’s people. Cooperation is desirable between the various Christian denominations, when the end to be attained is itself justified, and when such cooperation involves no violation of conscience or compromise of loyalty to Christ and His Word as revealed in the New Testament.
Exodus 17:12; 18:17ff.; Judges 7:21; Ezra 1:3-4; 2:68-69; 5:14-15; Nehemiah 4; 8:1-5; Matthew 10:5-15; 20:1-16; 22:1-10; 28:19-20; Mark 2:3; Luke 10:1ff.; Acts 1:13-14; 2:1ff.; 4:31-37; 13:2-3; 15:1-35; 1 Corinthians 1:10-17; 3:5-15; 12; 2 Corinthians 8-9; Galatians 1:6-10; Ephesians 4:1-16; Philippians 1:15-18.
The SBC is embroiled in a politically charged environment that is not going to go away.
I think you are wrong here Bob. It is going away, it’s actually been going away all this year. This year is mild compared to years past and I expect it to get milder. I think the days of politically charged is going to the wayside.
The SBC needs God; God does not need the SBC.
That’s something Calvinists agree with.
When the SBC replaces people that are not qualified for whatever reason and replaces them with people whose only concern is getting their job done , and doing that job has been explained to all of us both in expectations, cost & method , and above board where all that want to understand may ; then people will quit fracturing and factorising allowing All of us to go to church just for the word and not to decide how to vote or for whom to vote . There are many well educated members of our churches capable of making those decisions for themselves and whose intelligence is insulted when a church or SBC officer sees the need to explain these things . Explanations about theology whether printed or taught will solve themselves but it is no ones job to introduce and dictate and answer questions about the the Bible that aren’t contained in the Bible at least to the point we see ourselves today. No one needs to be embarrassed . Accepting Fred Luter for what he is as a preacher and his “on-target” life as a pastor would be a good beginning ; but, I’m very afraid that someone will see it as his/her responsibility to try to “improve” the relationship it sems we want to have for the SBC and His Church . Bitter fighting is wrong and detrimental to everyone .
Jim G.: did James MacDonald actually say the doctrine of congregational church government was false? Do you have any links for it. I have felt very uneasy about much of the Reformed due to the eldership govenrment issues; they do not have any checks and balances and all we will get out of it is another presbyterian mess. I have observed this eldership government and how it lends itself ever more open to the dictatorship either by a group or even by the pastor.
Hi James,
Yes, he did. If I include the link, this will go into moderation. All you need to do is Google the phrase “james macdonald congregationalism is from satan.” The first site to come up is MacDonald’s blog where he discusses it. See if you can find it and read it. It is pretty sobering.
Jim G.