Lifeway Resources pushes Calvinism in latest Bible study curriculum by Peter Lumpkins

Lifeway Christian Resources recently publicized the release of a new small group Bible study curriculum—The Gospel Project. Media Relations Manager for Lifeway, Jon Wilke, writes in the Baptist Press release  >>>

For the first time in more than a decade, LifeWay Christian Resources is releasing a new ongoing Bible study series for children, students and adults under one theme… . designed to help participants examine the deeper theological and missional concepts in the text. It is slated for preorder in June and features a three-year study plan with 13-week units. Each unit uses an age-appropriate voice, depth and course of study

Hence, it’s not often Lifeway pours massive amounts of resources into launching an entirely new curriculum. And, if one wants a sample, The Gospel Project website offers a downloadable lesson for potential customers to examine.

Trevin Wax, who serves as managing editor of The Gospel Project, states that the new small group series is “more than curriculum," with the goal being to “provide a theologically driven study that points people to Jesus.” Serving as general editor of The Gospel Project is Ed Stetzer, President of Lifeway Research. Says Stetzer,

Much Bible study material is created under the assumption that to be relevant to the new believer or unchurched visitor, the leader needs to stay on the surface…We think leaders must make the profound truths of Scripture accessible to everyone

So, The Gospel Project is designed as a “theologically driven project” which makes the “profound truths of Scripture” accessible to all peoples of all ages, a worthy goal one must admit. On the other hand, to fully grasp the provision Lifeway now offers Southern Baptists as a theologically driven study the goal of which is to point people to Jesus and make the profound truths of Scripture accessible to everyone, we will do ourselves a favor if we peek at the literary team behind The Gospel Project. Who are they, and what theology drives their understanding of Scripture?

With that in mind, let’s briefly examine the contributors whom Lifeway publicizes as the editors and writers behind The Gospel Project curriculum, a curriculum Lifeway publicizes as its new theologically driven study which explores the profound truths of Scripture.

The Gospel Project editors

• Ed Stetzer, general editor of The Gospel Project: Frequent speaker at Founders Conferences. Stetzer was promoting Mark Driscoll to Southern Baptists when no one had even heard of Mark Driscoll. Stetzer is a Calvinist.
• Trevin Wax, managing editor of The Gospel Project: recently but officially affiliated with The Gospel Coalition, perhaps today's most sophisticated network of Reformed Christian authors, pastors, and theologians. Wax is definitively a Calvinist theologically and appears to resonate well with the young, restless, and reformed community

The Gospel Project Advisory Council

• D.A. Carson: renown evangelical theologian; prolific author; and strong Calvinist; perhaps the most shining figure in The Gospel Coalition 
• Matt Chandler: Lead Pastor of The Village Church; Council Member of The Gospel Coalition; strong Calvinist; resonates well with the young, restless, and reformed community; board member of Acts 29
• James MacDonald, Pastor of Harvest Bible Chapel; Council Member of The Gospel Coalition; strong Calvinist; resonates well with the young, restless, and reformed community; leader in The Elephant Room project
• Daniel Akin: president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; moderate Calvinist, nonetheless resonates well with and supports the young, restless, and reformed community including Mark Driscoll; Akin also appears to support Founders Ministries and Acts 29 both of which are “Reformed” organizations; Akin also seems to have led a visible shift toward Calvinism at Southeastern seminary
• J.D. Greear, Lead Pastor of The Summit Church: adjunct professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary; Calvinist in theology; resonates well with and supports the young, restless, and reformed community including Mark Driscoll and Acts 29
• Eric Mason, Lead Pastor Epiphany Fellowship: Calvinist in theology and board member of Acts 29
• Kimberly Thornbury: Vice President for Student Services & Dean of Students at Union University, Jackson Tennessee; wife of Greg Thornbury, Dean of the School of Theology & Missions, School of Theology & Missions at Union University; Greg Thornbury is a high profile Calvinist and presumably his wife Kimberly is as well
• Jay Noh: Illinois Baptist State Association, Chicago; served as professor and the Director of the Chicago Extension Center of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; not sure about the theological underpinnings since so little is known of Noh. Given his status as an extension center director for Southern seminary, however, it probably is not too difficult to guess
• Joe Thorn: Lead Pastor Redeemer Fellowship, St. Charles, Ill; a high profile Calvinist among the young, restless, and reformed; strongly affiliated with Acts 29, The Resurgence, and Mark Driscoll
• Juan Sanchez: Pastor of High Pointe Baptist Church, Austin, Texas; Sanchez is a strong Calvinist
• Collin Hansen: editorial director at The Gospel Coalition; a strong Calvinist theologically, Hansen is author of Young, Restless, Reformed: A Journalist’s Journey With the New Calvinists, a book in which he dubbed Southern Baptist Theological Seminary “ground zero” for the Calvinist resurgence in the younger evangelical generation

The Gospel Project lesson writers¹

• Jared Wilson: affiliated with the young, restless, and reformed, Acts 29, Mark Driscoll; Calvinist in theology
• Jonathan Leeman: director of communications for 9Marks and serves as elder at Capital Hill Baptist Church; Calvinist in theology 
• Geoff Ashley: Discipleship Resource Pastor, The Village Church; Calvinist in theology; supporter of Acts 29 and Mark Driscoll
• Afshin Ziafat: Lead Pastor of Providence Church; presumably a strong Calvinist theologically
• Juan Sanchez: Pastor of High Pointe Baptist Church, Austin, Texas; Sanchez is a strong Calvinist
• Christian George: presumably a moderate Calvinist
• Halim Suh: an elder and equipping Pastor at Austin Stone Community Church, a strong Calvinist church 

Easily recognizable threads run through the working team above which Lifeway has weaved together for The Gospel Project.

First, few, if any, exceptions exist concerning the theology to which the editors and writers adhere who are preparing the Bible study curriculum for Southern Baptist congregations. In short, The Gospel Project Bible studies are overwhelmingly prepared by Calvinists. From a quick look at the names Lifeway publicized who are associated with the curriculum, one may be sure that the theological trajectory behind The Gospel Project, published by Lifeway and described as a new theologically driven study exploring the profound truths of Scripture, will be nothing short of a strong, robust Calvinism.

Admittedly, the few Calvinist churches in the SBC may be favorably encouraged. However, the indisputably clear majority of Southern Baptist churches may be thoroughly disappointed to know their adults, youth, and children can now be subtly indoctrinated into the doctrines of grace as easily as ordering the Calvinistic doctrines from their Lifeway resources order form. Think also of a staff member who would have few scruples in ordering the material for particular groups but not informing the church of the theological underpinnings of Calvinism the materials possess. A scenario like this could be devastating for individual churches.²

Perhaps a solution would be for Lifeway's public relations department to revise Trevin Wax and Ed Stetzer's misleading profile for The Gospel Project as simply a new theologically driven study exploring the profound truths of Scripture by adding "from a decidedly Calvinist perspective." At least churches would then have the necessary knowledge about the Reformed nature of the new Bible study curriculum upfront in order to make informed decisions about whether they wanted Calvinism taught in their Sunday Schools.

Second, while many of the advisers and writers have few ties with grassroots Southern Baptists—the backbone of customer base for Lifeway curriculum—they nonetheless have strong ties with organizations, networks, and individuals about which and with whom a sizable majority of grassroots Southern Baptists would presumably question. Acts 29, The Resurgence, and Mark Driscoll, for example, represent men and entities problematic to convention life by and large. Even so, Lifeway chose to connect the Bible study series to men and entities hardly acceptable to mainstream Southern Baptists. In addition, many who serve on The Gospel Project team are affiliated with non-Southern Baptist ecclesiologies (i.e. elder-ruled churches or anti-congregational polities). Again, this poses a subtle challenge to our cherished Baptist heritage. Yet The Gospel Project does not appear to tease out the questionable relationships for the church to make informed decisions.

Perhaps Lifeway’s emboldened promotion of Calvinism through Sunday school curriculum for Southern Baptist churches may very well wake up the sleeping giant among us who will say, “Enough already with Calvinizing the Southern Baptist Convention!”

With that, I am…

Peter

¹the website adds "and more" in addition to the names actually mentioned

²obviously I am not implying all Calvinists would potentially be unscrupulous staff members anymore than I would imply all non-Calvinists would be scrupulous staffers

Comments

[peter]

Well said Mary...Very well said...

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

I'm so glad that Allen and others who raise up the BFM 2000 will now be joining us who want to hold Al Mohler and others accountable for hiring practices that discriminate beyond the BFM 2000.

[peter]

Allen,

Look. I've been fair, offering my reasoning on why and how I come to the conclusions I do. On the other hand, when you cannot reasonably present your point in the public square, you resort to the old stand-by--just tape an unbecoming label on the back of one's opponent (i.e. Calviniphobia).

Frankly this may be indicative as to precisely why so many Calvinists shoot from under the covers or behind the rocks. When their arguments fail to persuade, many of them get extremely defensive and employ methods like Ascol just did with Gerald Harris and you did with me.

Oh, well, good day to you. We're through now.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Allen Nelson]

The contributors are Calvinist, you don't have to agree with them. The content will fall under the doctrinal affirmations of the SBC (at least all those who affirm the BFM 2000).

Again, what exactly is the problem? "Calviniphobia" I think.

Case closed.

[peter]

Allen,

Thanks. But no, I have no interest in changing the title. Titles are what they are--mere titles. Sometimes titles state the theme of a book accurately, sometimes not. Sometimes titles have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject in the piece, or when it does, it may even be a "reverse" to what the piece actually suggests. If your only reservation you have is with the title, I'd simply but firmly say, there's no use engaging further.

I went to great lengths to show how my piece focused on the contributors not the content. I gave three believable examples which fairly illustrates how, given circumstances were different and we were faced with material written exclusively by pronounced Arminians, convinced Charismatic-pentecostals, and/or rugged Dispensationalists, no one would be proposing an invalid or improbable inference that we could reasonably expect the material to reflect the respective perspectives. Even so, that is dismissed and yet another plea to explain or educate is necessary.

Hence, I'm afraid I cannot muster enough evidence or reason to convince those who ignore what seems to me to be fairly clear. Unless, therefore, you have something more substantial to contribute, I'll consider this exchange closed.

Grace.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Allen Nelson]

Peter,

I've read your comments and I still just don't understand where it you are coming from. I would change your title if you are not trying to argue Lifeway is pushing Calvinism. I say they are not pushing calvinism and you say "that's not what I'm concerned about". So, at least change your title.

Again, and I know you've already responded to this, Lifeway has the freedom to produce any material it wants- it's guideline is Scripture and the way Southern Baptits (as a whole) interpret it (i.e. the BFM). So, if a whole bunch of "Moderate Baptists" got together and wrote a curriculum and Lifeway published it, as long as it did not disagree with our doctrinal statement, the BFM, I would not cry foul -although, I probably wouldn't purchase it ;)

So, I'm still confused about what exactly you are upset about and I'll attribute that to my lesser years of expierence and education...

Allen

[peter lumpkins]

Simon,

O.K. You've had your last swipe. I offered three substantial comments which I think go a long way toward addressing some of your concerns. What is your response? Log back on with a completely bogus response.

Now, here's the deal: address my comments or remain in the background.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Simon Lam]

Peter - I know, right!? I mean, what kind of idiots would think that a post titled "Lifeway resources push Calvinism" would be complaining about Lifeway's new curriculum pushing Calvinism!?

Some people...

Simon

[peter lumpkins]

Allen,

First, unless you can show, either from the original post or the comment thread, where I "attacked" The Gospel Project contributors, do not mention that on this thread again. We have enough to talk about without making up accusations which have no basis in reality.

Second, did you read the comments I suggested? Allow me to repeat—here, here, and here

Please respond to them. Then, I'll entertain your future comments.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Allen Nelson]

So your "reservations towards the Lifeway curriculum" are based SOLELY on the fact that the godly men who wrote it are Calvinists?

Like you are all up in arms about a curriculum just based on ASSUMPTIONS? Do you not think the curriculum deserves a chance to be looked at before we accuse anyone of "Calvinizing"? This is petty and unhelpful to the Kingdom. Again, I'll stick by what I said in the last post- if there is anything in this curriculum that goes against the BFM then we can sound the alarm. The problem is Peter, you know there won't be anything against the BFM, rather it will only be from a slant you don't agree with. So, instead of waiting to attack the curriculum you attack it's authors. Not helpful.

Allen

[Simon Lam]

Oh, Peter. You're just a little ball of jovial fun, aren't you? ;)

[peter lumpkins]

Simon,

You query, "Isn't acknowledging and accepting differences joyfully under the same banner (of "SBC") a better unity than trying to conflate every perspective/pretend differences don't exist?" You're asking the wrong person. I have no problem either acknowledging or accepting at least most differences between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. What I do have a problem accepting is a decided denial that Calvinism makes any difference at all, which is precisely what many of the Calvinists are arguing about the list of contributors for The Gospel Project at LifeWay.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Simon Lam]

Isn't acknowledging and accepting differences joyfully under the same banner (of "SBC") a better unity than trying to conflate every perspective/pretend differences don't exist? Your 'solution' seems completely impractical and unnecessary.

[peter lumpkins]

Simon,

No. LifeWay should not be free to produce curriculum for all theological perspectives within the realm of the BF&M. This does nothing but encourage fragmentation. And, certainly while LifeWay should not ostracize any particular nuance of our theological stream, neither should it cater to one which is precisely what it did with The Gospel Project. There is simply no excuse for their insensitive, misguided decision to make The Gospel Project exclusively a "Reformed" curriculum. Indeed LifeWay's action drives the wedge of divide deeper. In an environment of division, LifeWay creates more division by stacking the deck with a list of contributors they should have known would not set well with a large portion of Southern Baptists.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Ricardo,

The rhetoric you employ is precisely indicative of what remains the center of the Calvinist-non-Calvinist divide in the SBC. You applaud the LifeWay material because you assume, since it is written from "Reformed" authors, offering a Reformed understanding of God's sovereignty among other doctrines, which you quickly identify as the "the true doctrines of the bible." Indeed I could not have made the case against LifeWay any more clearer than you just did. I only would hope other Calvinists would be as open and candid as you are on this thread.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Allen,

The question is unfortunately irrelevant to the point of this post and not within the spectrum of my reservations toward the LifeWay material. Clearly, I addressed the contributors in this post not the specific content of the lessons some erroneously assert. Hence, to inquire specifically about the lessons makes little sense.

Even so, one may reasonably deduce what in all probability could be suggested about a lesson plan the entire slate of contributors being of a particular theological persuasion. I addressed this this in an analogous way above—here, here, and here—to which not a single response has been logged (at least last time I checked). I think you’ll find those adequately deal with the question of what may be legitimately inferred as a probable outcome from a unanimous listing of theological writers without necessarily getting into specific lessons (lessons of which the vast majority are not even available).

With that, I am…

Peter  

[Simon Lam]

Serious question. Shouldn't Lifeway be free to produce curriculum for all theological perspectives within the realm of the BF&M?

[Josh]

Hey guys - I've got a crazy idea. Now, go with me here because this is a little "left field". Here's the idea: if you don't like this content, you - and here's where it gets compacted - don't buy it for your churches.

Let me know if anyone needs more in-depth instructions on this strategy, guys ;)

In all seriousness, this post - and the ensuing comment thread - is silly. No Reformed Baptists are going to care if Lifeway puts out an Arminian curriculum; they just won't buy it. I'd encourage all of you to do the same.

[Ricardo]

Praise God that the SBC is returning to the true doctrines of the bible. Don't be so staunchly against it, the bible is clear, God is Sovereign in all things including salvation. We cannot know the secret things of God but the bible is clear on election, it's not muddy. Please and I say this in love, don't let your flesh turn you off to sound doctrine. Read the whole bible, the whole counsel of God and you will see that God Sovereign in all things including salvtion.
God bless,
Ricardo

[Austin]

Boo.

[Allen Nelson]

Peter,

What lessons from the curriculum in particular do you disagree with or deem harmful to the church? Show me a lesson that doesn't line up with the Baptist Faith and Message and then we'll sound the alarm.

Allen

[peter]

I really think the gospel project is just a symtom of a much larger problem. Lifeway, in my opinion, is no longer a fully southern baptist entity. Check your quarterly SS literature and tell me how many times the name SBC occurs, and the font size in which it occurs. We now have a entity of the SBC that acts more like a parachurch organization to all denominations more then a baptist publishing house. I think its time the convention uses its Trustees to reign in Lifeway and remove the heretical nonsense that it has been espousing for the last decade.

With that, I am NOT...

the other Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Charles,

Thanks brother. And, I appreciate the 'yell-out' with your links.

Peace and grace...

With that, I am...
Peter

[lmalone]

"David – Just for clarification. Elephant Room is not a Gospel Coalition conference. I believe that's where Driscoll said that to Jack Graham"

The confusion could be that Trevin Wax was live blogging the Elephant Room and he is very much involved with the Gospel Coalition. It all runs together at some points!

[volfan007]

I'm sorry...I think the name of this conference was actually the Elephant Room.

David

[Max]

"The Gospel Project: A Reformed Perspective"

Bob Hadley's suggestion to title the study materials in this manner might prove to be appropriate based on those selected in both advisory and writing roles for the project. I agree that such label would not be an effective LifeWay marketing strategy, but it would be honest. While I am a non-reformed non-Calvinist Southern Baptist, I appreciate the integrity of one YRR-led SBC church in my area which recently added "Reformed" to its church sign and website. Prospective members now know who they are, just as you will always know who I am. Last time I looked, "stealth" was not on the list of spiritual gifts.

For some insight on how one particular team member on the project's advisory council thinks, see http://www.desiringgod.org/resource-library/interviews/john-piper-interviews-matt-chandler-part-3 . I think you would agree that Mr. Chandler is up-front and honest in what he believes.

[Kevin]

David – Just for clarification. Elephant Room is not a Gospel Coalition conference. I believe that's where Driscoll said that to Jack Graham.

[volfan007]

Peter,

Have you seen much from the Gospel Coalition Conference? Here's a quote from Driscoll about the Acts 29 Church planting network, about whether Acts 29 would sponser a Church planter, who was not a 5 pt. Calvinist, or not; Driscoll said, "If you get 4, we let you in."

Boy, they sound like they would work well with others; dont they? And yet, Lifeway and NAMB are putting out this Reformed literature and supporting Acts 29 Church starts. Wow. Maybe that's saying something to all of us, out here, who are not Reformed, 5 pt. Calvinists???

David

[peter lumpkins]

Phillip,

Thanks. Like Agrippa, I'm almost persuaded to agree with you. If Lifeway would have been and/or would be transparent about the contributors' theological makeup, this could have been and/or could be a step forward. But as I have extensively argued here, and contra your assumed indication that we've apparently only Theo-politically postured ourselves rather than raised legitimate concerns about this material, Lifeway's explicit decision to offer a theologically driven study particularly planned and written exclusively by those who wholeheartedly embrace the pronounced contours of Calvinism deserves much discussion not to mention explanation.

Thanks.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Philip Miller]

To those of us not already "boxed in" by theological party politics, I think the material looks like it has real possibilities.

[Bob Hadley]

Peter,

I see in ALL the discussion, no reference to the idea of naming this project, "The Gospel Project: A Reformed Perspective" because they know IT WOULD NOT SELL. The cry would be, "People would not buy it because of the mischaracterizations about Calvinism; basically the same arguments used against Calvinists wanting to pastor non-Calvinist churches.

The SBC is in far worse shape than I realized. Far worse.

><>"

[peter lumpkins]

Darrell,

Look. If you'd like to engage a specific point pertaining to something I've written or another, then by all means do so. If you are just logging on to make remarks having no apparent connection to what's being said on this thread, I suggest you leave it alone.

Have a good night.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Darrell]

I am not and will not be threatened by a theological perspective. Why marginalize a soteriology that has strong roots in our history?

[Scott Shaffer]

The Lord would have to raise Walvoord and Hodges from the dead first!

[Charles]

Peter, hello!

Great article. Hold their feet to the fire.

Charles

[peter lumpkins]

Oh!

I almost forgot.

Since there exist innumerable Southern Baptists who are also theological Dispensationalists, Lifeway could put together a theologically driven study posing it to the entire denomination as "The Biblical Gospel Project." The Advisory Council could conceivable include John Walvoord, Zane Hodges, Dwight Pentecost, and perhaps even Hal Lindsay. And, one may be fairly certain that a suitable plethora of capable Dispensational authors could be found to write a distinguished theologically driven study, all team members of which are visible, high-profile Dispensationalists.

And we know that since all Calvinists in the convention are simply in theological love with dispensationalism, Calvinists would be givin the high-five for this illustrious new material promoted by Lifeway as "The Biblical Gospel Project," a project exclusively composed by visible, high-profile, Dispensationalist believers.

What a double West Georgia hoot!

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Cal,

If you do not see the difference in the questions raised in this post and your attempt to deter the discussion toward the BF&M, I'm afraid our exchange is over. I am not presently interested in pursuing what doctrines the BF&M forbids or allows. What I am profoundly interested in--and what the original post explored--is why Lifeway would assemble an exclusive group of high-profile, visible Calvinists to fulfill their desire to develop a theologically driven study. I also find interesting Calvinists themselves defending Lifeway's decision as if it's no big deal.

Now let me address your confident assertion about what you're certain I'd object: "And as for Lifeway not having any non-Calvinist oriented curriculum, come on man! You know as well as I do that ALL of the rest of the Lifeway curriculum is non-Calvinist or you'd be complaining about that too!" First, I know nothing of the sort. As far as I can tell, Lifeway curriculum has been through the years biblically-oriented on the one hand and/or pragmatically-oriented on the other (that's not to say the quality of the material was what it needed to be). To my knowledge we have had no material specifically profiled as a theologically driven study. I'll be glad to stand corrected on that.

And, albeit your unnecessary insult to the contrary, I do not think it's healthy to have any theological trajectory profiled to the exclusion of the other (i.e. Calvinism, non-Calvinism). This approach does nothing whatsoever positively toward unity. Instead it drives wedges even further.

Consider, however:

Perhaps the next "Gospel Project" Lifeway could pursue would be to round up all the charismatic Southern Baptist writers we have, put them under an Advisory Council led by eminent, visible scholars of both Charismatic and Pentecostal persuasion including Gordon Fee, Amos Yong, Peter Althouse, J. Rodman Williams, and Stanley Horton to name a few. No one in this team could hold a non-Charismatic, cessationist view. The assignment of this prestigious team would be to develop a theologically driven study on The Holy Spirit. Let's see how this would fly.

After that, Lifeway could consider rounding up all the Moderate Baptist churches in the SBC and pooling from them, the best writers for a new theologically driven study on Baptist Identity. The Advisory Council could be headed by Walter Shurden with members including Bill Leonard, Bruce Gourley, and Bruce Prescott among others. And, no one serves on the team who is not a moderately-leaning Baptist. How would this go over? Precisely as the study on The Holy Spirit did.

Hence, I suspect the absurdity of this notion is surely complete by now.

So, yes, Cal, I'd be a squeaky wheel if Lifeway posed a project which catered exclusively to the multiple factions within our convention --no matter the stripe--pulling an exclusively picked group to write theologically driven Bible study materials from an obvious truncated perspective yet publicized as if it's healthy and proper for the entire denomination.

This is one pint shy of organizational-denominational madness in my view.

With that, I am...
Peter

[lmalone]

" The first place to start looking for the source of the problem is the long-standing theology practiced by the majority of the congregations in the SBC – an Arminianism that glorifies decisional regeneration, worships at the altar of free will and, most significantly, tramples on the accomplished atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ.
"

Wow. This is interesting. How about we look at the last 100 years or so of Calvinist churches in the US? How about we look at old "Reformed" Europe and how the church is doing there after practicing Calvinism for so long. We can start with modern day Geneva.

In fact, why don't we look at how the Reformers adopted the state church model and ask how that jives with "Limited Atonement" and a congregation full of "believers" (?) compelled by the magistrates? I find that amusing. And you want me to think Calvin, Zwingli were "brilliant"? He was more political strategist using religion. You would think if he really believed in Limited Atonement he would have connected the dots on that one. Yes, I know, he was a man of his time as the defense goes. (For Driscoll, too). So were Menno Simons, Felix Mann, etc who defied the state church knowing it was corrupt and hypocritical in doctrinal matters.

But I forgot. You are the "new" Reformers who are going to make it work this time.

[Bob Hadley]

Cal..

There is NO problem with your suggestion... that Reformed literature be more prevalent at Lifeway... No Problem... just name this new Project

"The Gospel Project: A Reformed Perspective"

In that way there is NO issue of the materials getting into hands that did not want them!

Simple solution to this complex problem.

I knew that this issue was going to come up just as it has and well it should. Trevin Wax, managing editor of The Gospel Project made the following statement. "The goal is to provide a theologically driven study that points people to Jesus’.” Sounds absolutely wonderful until one digs in a little deeper to understand what some actually identify as being “theologically driven.” This is no doubt driven by Reformed thought. There is no responsible reason to expect any less.

Make no mistake about it; The Gospel Project will be exactly what the managing editor says it will be; “a theologically driven study (according to the writers) that points people to Jesus.” That theology will reflect the theological position of the individuals who have been carefully chosen to write this project. These men have never been accused of pulling any punches to appease anyone other than the God they serve on a daily basis. There is no reason to expect any less here. The Gospel Project will deliver everything promised and a LOT MORE.

Bob Hadley

[Mary]

It's funny how Calvinists scream "the Baptist Faith and Message! the Baptist Faith and Message" and yet they are perfectly fine with seminaries using Calvinist Abstract of Prinicples to disciminate against nonCalvinists. Sometimes the BFM is enough and sometimes not. And sometimes it's thrown out as a red herring to distract from Calvinists clearly pushing a Calvinist agenda.

[Cal]

So whether or not the theology contained in SBC curriculum is within the parameters of the SBC doctrinal statement is irrelevant? Hmmm . . . then for what sorts of things should we use the BF&M?
And as for Lifeway not having any non-Calvinist oriented curriculum, come on man! You know as well as I do that ALL of the rest of the Lifeway curriculum is non-Calvinist or you'd be complaining about that too! I have no idea how Lifeway chooses their curriculum writers, but I doubt they have been sure to include Calvinists in their other curriculum.
Reformed churches, pastors, and individuals are becoming more prevalent in the SBC. Why wouldn't that be reflected in Lifeway curriculum offerings?

[peter lumpkins]

Cal,

No, that is not a relevant question. The question is, why is The Gospel Project definitively a Calvinist-oriented curriculum? To mt knowledge we have no non-Calvinist-oriented curriculum and if we did I'd protest just as loudly. No curriculum we know of has systematically scrubbed Calvinists from the board. Yet you guys are here defending scrubbing non-Calvinists from the board. What a West Georgia hoot!

With that, I am...
Peter

[Cal]

Here's a question:
Will the Gospel Project Curriculum contradict the Baptist Faith and Message 2000? Isn't that the test, since Lifeway is an arm of the SBC? If the material contradicts the BF&M, then it would seem that changes need to be made at Lifeway. If it doesn't contradict the BF&M, then what's the problem? What types of devastation could there be if the curriculum conforms to the BF&M?

[peter lumpkins]

Darrell,

While I am perfectly capable of "filtering" curriculum, I have no desire to be concerned about key doctrinal issues coming out of what should be a trusted publishing venue, Darrell. Once again you deter around the issue at hand by glibly suggesting this is about whether we want Lifeway to be "homogeneous". Yes we do in certain areas, do we not?

From my standpoint, this is about unilateral indoctrination of a particular soteriological perspective. I've already stated I have no qualms about both Calvinists and non-Calvinists writing curriculum precisely as we have done for a century or more. I most certainly do have a problem with a unilateral perspective in mind in any study materials.

I find this exchange so odd. A few years ago Calvinists were pouting about not being on the same team, not being respected, being left out, etc etc etc. Now they are defending being the exclusive bearers of orthodoxy, and the pitiful defenses logged here about nothing wrong that The Gospel Project is exclusively Calvinistically-oriented is the irony of ironies.

I'm done, Darrell. We will not agree on this one.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Darrell]

Do we really want Lifeway to be homogeneous in their material? If you dont like the material then dont use it. I think it is our job as pastors to be discerning which I respect in your concern but I do not need Lifeway to be my filter.

[peter lumpkins]

All,

One glaring factoid continued to be ignored by those logging here who are vocally critical of my summation of Lifeway's decision to stack the deck, so to speak, with Calvinist contributors to The Gospel Project is this: Lifeway itself bills The Gospel Project as being a definitively theologically driven study. Note again--theologically driven.

Consider:

a) Lifeway states as a primary goal for The Gospel Project to be a "theologically driven study"

b) If the goal for The Gospel Project was a theologically driven study, then they surely enlisted people who could successfully produce theologically driven material

c) But if the enlisted people were to produce theologically driven material, how is it reasonable to question whether the material has theologically driven characteristics?

d) And, if The Gospel Project study material possesses theologically driven characteristics--as it rightly should and was intended to do according to Lifeway's own goals for the materials--then the question remains, what kind of theologically driven characteristics should we expect from the theologically driven people Lifeway enlisted to produce the materials?

e) From every indication we gather from Lifeway's publicizing of The Gospel Project, all enlisted persons in each curriculum tier--editorial tier, advisory tier, writing tier--definitively embrace Calvinism as his or her theological perspective

f) And since Calvinism is the theological perspective informing every person Lifeway enlisted to develop the study material, we may surely expect Calvinism to be the theological perspective informing and spawning the theological characteristics within the theologically driven study Lifeway designed

g) Presumably, Lifeway knew the theological perspectives of every person it enlisted to develop The Gospel Project

h) And, since Lifeway knew every person it enlisted to develop the curriculum wholeheartedly embraced Calvinism, we may safely presume Lifeway desired to develop a theologically driven study curriculum developed entirely by Calvinists

i) And, since Lifeway desired to develop a theologically driven study exclusively choosing persons embracing Calvinism to design and write lessons, knowing the theologically driven studies would undoubtedly reflect the enlisted persons' own theological perspectives...perspectives which, of course, are on all counts, thorough-going Calvinism...

how is it an irrelevant question to ask,

Does it not follow that Lifeway, therefore, desired to produce a theologically driven study from a decidedly Calvinist perspective?

From my side of the creek, it seems hopeless to argue this is no big deal for our publishing house to unilaterally make a decision like this. In fact, it may not be too much to conclude that Lifeway has just made perhaps the most divisive decision imaginable in creating what is not wrong to dub a "Reformed"-oriented curriculum.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Mary]

“ … glorifies decisional regeneration, worships at the altar of free will and, most significantly, tramples on the accomplished atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Mr. Tuggle offers a disturbing glimpse into the reformed mind as it characterizes the majority belief and practice of Southern Baptist Christians. I was grieved to the point of tears when I read that statement. If this view is shared by those who attempt to reform our ranks via the project cited or by other avenues, then great indeed is the theological chasm that separates us. Lord Jesus, help us.

Max, Mr. Tuggle clearly has no clue who and what Southern Baptists have been through the years.

It's amazing how someone like Tuggle can show such a vitriol toward the nonCalvinists of the SBC and yet gleefully boast of the Calvinisation being accomplished with all the dirty nonCalvinist money. It seems we stupid biblically illiterate nonCalvinist are to shut up and continue to send our betters our money so they can continue to caricuture and insult us. Tuggle's words need to be copied and shown over and over to those who continue to insist there is no agenda to take over the SBC and that Calvinists really just want to get along and work beside nonCalvinists.

[peter lumpkins]

Darrell,

It does not surprise me that some do not see the cause for alarm. I do. And, apparently I am not alone.

Also, you indicate "We should help our churches understand the soveriegnty of God and individuals response". Who would disagree with this, Darrell? Nonetheless, you appear to be assuming that while Calvinism teaches God's sovereignty, non-Calvinism teaches human response. If so, I'm afraid I do not get your point.

Finally, no one questions whether many of the early leaders of the SBC were Calvinists--at least the idea holds no influence here.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Max]

“ … glorifies decisional regeneration, worships at the altar of free will and, most significantly, tramples on the accomplished atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Mr. Tuggle offers a disturbing glimpse into the reformed mind as it characterizes the majority belief and practice of Southern Baptist Christians. I was grieved to the point of tears when I read that statement. If this view is shared by those who attempt to reform our ranks via the project cited or by other avenues, then great indeed is the theological chasm that separates us. Lord Jesus, help us.

[Darrell]

I am not a Calvinist but I really do not see the need for such alarm. We should help our churches understand the soveriegnty of God and individuals response. I was told when i was younger that Calvinism was stupid. I think that was just as destructive as what you are concerned about. Many of the early leaders of the SBC were Calvinist. So to discount it, is a myopic at best.

[peter lumpkins]

Scott,

Thanks. I suppose one could see some similarities. However I’ve made it as clear as I know how I think one is being completely disingenuous with my piece here by quoting a partial snippet of my title to define the entire thrust of my post. Why others and now you insist on doing so only makes sense if the title in fact does define the argument I make in the piece. It does not. But if you think it does, then show it or drop it.

Nor does it make a difference whether you or others think titles ought to define the body of the piece to which it is attached. That is your literary opinion. Even so, many books could be named the titles of which have little, if any, to do with the thrust of the book’s content. And the same could be added pertaining to magazines, journal articles, and any number of other printed media venues.

Now, Scott, if you’d like to challenge what I actually argued in the post, be my guest. You could start by engaging the second part of this comment. But if you, like Fred, want to lobby against my way of titling posts, etc. I’m afraid I don’t have the inspiration to match it.

Suffice it to say, engage the content of my post and I’ll be more than happy to oblige. Otherwise, I trust your day goes well.

With that, I am…

Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Fred,

First, why you insist on repeating "[Wax] is at most a 4-pointer" to me I find confusing. I stated clearly in the OP what I still assume to be true concerning Wax's belief:

"Wax is definitively a Calvinist theologically and appears to resonate well with the young, restless, and reformed community"

Now which part of that statement implies Wax to be beyond "t most a 4-pointer", Fred? Please inform me.

Now in the comment above I responded to a question concerning the difference between Akin and Wax's Calvinism and whether I assumed Wax was a 5 Point Calvinist. My response was that "Wax is somewhat confusing" because he denied LA in one place and seemed to embrace it--at least by implication--in another leaving one to wonder when or if a change took place. Why this seems hard for you top grasp I cannot tell. In no case have I questioned whether Wax was "telling the truth" nor have I assumed here Wax to be anything other than a 4-point Calvinist. Hence, you're point is completely irrelevant, Fred.

Second, as for your repeating your prior assertion that Wax seems to be merely "friendly" toward the Reformed with the added implication that this friendliness seems to make him unpalatable to me is, if I may be candid, absurd. Once again, Wax is definitively more than merely being "friendly" to The Gospel Coalition particularly and the young, restless, and reformed generally. Rather Wax is officially a significant part of this community. He's not just friendly with them; he's one of them...one with them. Hence, Wax is Reformed. He doesn't deny this. He's proudly a part of this community. Why, then, would you continue making an obviously skewed point about this when Wax himself is comfortable officially aligning himself with an exclusively Reformed community, Fred?

Well, no, the primary thrust of my post was met. Like I mentioned above, had you bothered to carefully read what I had in mind, you would have noted that I specifically made two propositions in this post: a) "In short, The Gospel Project Bible studies are overwhelmingly prepared by Calvinists. No one has yet to overturn this assertion. And b) Second, while many of the advisers and writers have few ties with grassroots Southern Baptists...they nonetheless have strong ties with organizations... [etc]... about which...a sizable majority of grassroots Southern Baptists would presumably question". Your curious focus on my post title is patently absurd, Fred. Sorry. There's just no way to state that any kinder.

And, why I didn't entitle the post with your suggested is hardly a criticism I either want or need to spend time addressing.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Scott]

Peter,
Last year when the Rob Bell controversy ignited, you took several bloggers and writers to task for jumping to conclusions about the book based on the promotional video. Could you be doing the same thing here by accusing Lifeway of "pushing Calvinism" based on a list of names and their affiliations? Plus, we do have one lesson out that by all accounts does not have a Reformed slant to it. Earlier, you wanted to emphasize that it was only one lesson, but it could be a lesson that represented where most of the curriculum is headed. Shouldn't we wait for an entire quarter of the curriculum to come out before we decide that Lifeway is "pushing Calvinism?"

[Fred Johnson]

Mr Lumpkins,
From the link you provided above, Trevin Wax writes, "There are plenty of Reformed-leaning guys like me who may not adhere to the whole system, but who are able to get along just fine with those who do." If you believe that Wax is truthful, then he is at most a 4-pointer and friendly toward the fully Reformed camp. It is, in fact, this friendliness that makes seems to make him unpalatable to you. The other link you provide isn't damning either. Five confessions are given to which one need not "agree with every particular expression in [the] confessional statement." The very entry qualifications given to that particular aggregator allows for non-5 pointers to participate fully.

Regardless of how little latitude you are willing to give those who are friendly toward Calvinists, the fact remains that your blog's primary assertion was not met in the writing. You assert that LW is "pushing Calvinism," and you mock me for reading the curriculum, but you provide zero proof that is has happened. At best, you should have used the title, "Why I Think LifeWay Will Push Calvinism..." You proved nothing using content, and have only speculated about intent.

I did in fact read all of the adult and student samples provided and see nothing resembling a Calvinistic agenda.

Two questions: Does LW still sell multiple styles of curriculum that are non-Calvinist? Will The Gospel Project replace any of those or be an additional option?

[peter lumpkins]

Thanks Tim (Tuggle). I appreciate your review of The Gospel Project materials and how you think it relates to my current concerns. Allow me to respond.

First, you mention you observe “no overt or covert attempt in The Gospel Project material to indoctrinate any one into any thing except a thorough and full-orbed Biblical theology.” In case you missed the part where 19 people are associated with The Gospel Project not one of which may be cited as a non-Calvinist, perhaps I need to mention it again. My concern I clearly made here focused on the contributors themselves not necessarily the content they offered. Besides, surveying a single lesson from a full three years worth of materials hardly suffices to judge Calvinism to be absent. All theological truths cannot be judged “Calvinist” or non-Calvinist” since there are obvious areas of overlap between the theological filters. Hence, that the bare mention of “Calvinism” or “Reformed” is absent proves nothing about the theological presuppositions of the authors. Note also that a very common trait today among many Reformed and Calvinist believers is to never mention either Calvinism or Reformed due to alleged “mass misunderstanding” of both terms. Again, it’s not surprising to find an absence of either terms you mentioned.  

And, please note this comment I left above in case some may feel like one’s personal theology is to be checked at the door before contributing a lesson. In addition, Tim, the liaisons which exist for many of these men are viewed as unacceptable by a large portion of Southern Baptists albeit you may not be among them (i.e. Mark Driscoll, Acts 29, and The Resurgence). Hence I disagree that there’s neither a overt nor covert attempt in The Gospel Project material to indoctrinate. And, your reference to “a thorough and full-orbed Biblical theology” depends upon what one means by a “thorough and full-orbed Biblical theology.” I’m quite sure The Gospel Project team would agree with you wholeheartedly. However, there'd exist many non-Calvinists who would possess a different understanding of what a "thorough and full-orbed Biblical theology" would look like.

Second, you query “How can we imitate those we don’t know about?” and then assert ”It is the height of chronological snobbery for anyone to imply that they don’t have anything to say to us.” Excuse me?  Who is suggesting and/or implying that Christian history has nothing to say to us?  You won’t find such a position here, my brother. I often recite history. The difference is, I often have to recite history that’s not being rehearsed by many Baptist Calvinists.

Third, nor am I aware of any Lifeway policy that requires the authors to disclose their views on soteriology. However, this is an entirely new curriculum whose designers and writers are virtually all Calvinists. Add to this, the widespread division we have in the convention over Calvinism—a division recently acknowledged by president of the Executive Committee, Frank Page—along with one of our seminaries that’s been dubbed “ground zero” for the young, restless, and reformed movement and we have serious issues.

Fourth, you find it again not a problem that Lifeway puts together a gospel curriculum made up exclusively of Calvinists because anyone one can “google” and find out about the authors. Tim, why would churches need to “google” to find out about authors at Lifeway? There seems to have been a tacit trust in Lifeway’s decisions about who authors the material. And just like I would not want someone to be excluded because he or she was a Calvinist, that’s precisely what’s been done with this Bible study series with one exception—the only names we have publicized are all Calvinists. You may not find that a problem, brother, but I do.

Fifth, so far as I know there are no “Arminian authors and contributors” to any of our materials. But if there are, I haven’t a single reservation in them being identified as such. Nor is it relevant that “The Baptist Faith and Message covers everything from a one-pointer to a five-pointer.” If that is the case, however, then why didn’t The Gospel Project assign any lessons to “one pointers”?  If the BF&M is a document which can sustain us all, why is Lifeway theologically discriminating against the “one pointers” similarly to the way Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is theologically discriminating against so-called “one-pointers”? One reason I suppose is Al Mohler’s hardline stance which, in essence, indicates that no theological model worthy of embracing exists apart from Reformed theology. Is Mohler’s former Dean (Thom Rainer) following his mentor in selectively putting Calvinists to work while ignoring non-Calvinists? Perhaps.

Sixth, while you may “generalize” all you wish, I’m afraid you cannot do so without challenge. You assert, “given the trail of destruction left across thousands of SBC congregations by Arminian theology and leadership…don’t you think we might want to listen to those in the Reformed camp?” So are you now arguing that the Sunday School material should unilaterally be written exclusively by Calvinists, Tim? Is this what you’re suggesting? It surely sounds like it. Even so, you asserted the “Arminian” destruction left among thousands of SBC congregations. Do you have any evidence for such an assertion?  If not, why would you make it? Furthermore, you’re simplistically suggesting all non-Calvinists are Arminians, a common mistake made by those who do not follow the theology closely.

Seventh, you cite “Studies” which you claim show “large percentages of the membership of an average SBC congregation do not participate in corporate worship with any regularity.” I’ll grant you your studies if you’ll offer a single one which states the reason for attendance slack is “Arminian” theology and leadership. If you cannot cite a study like that, what is the point your “Studies” show?   

Eight, you conclude “The first place to start looking for the source of the problem is the long-standing theology… an Arminianism that glorifies decisional regeneration, worships at the altar of free will and, most significantly, tramples on the accomplished atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ.” How interesting, Tim. I thought you were going to give us “some insight from a simple Sunday School teacher” on how one views The Gospel Project material. Lo and behold, what happens?  We end with a lecture pointing to the dangers of Arminianism and an outright apology for Limited Atonement of all things!  I guess you’ve proved my concerns I had. No matter how one tries, one cannot keep his or her theology privately. Sooner or later, it just pops right out there. Now that we know you are a strong Calvinist yourself (i.e. embracing Limited Atonement), I think your “insight from a simple Sunday School teacher” has taken on some new meaning for us.

Even so, your description of “Arminianism that glorifies decisional regeneration, worships at the altar of free will and, most significantly, tramples on the accomplished atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ” stands as the quintessential caricature of those who question Calvinist orthodoxy. We’ve engaged it enough here to rehearse it in our sleep.

Nonetheless, Tim, you go right on again suggesting “its time to listen to those in the Reformed camp” and that “Whether or not you want to listen to them.” Furthermore, you  chide those who “try to delay” the “trend” toward Reformed theology by employing “theological ignorance.”  So let me get this straight: those of us who question Calvinism do so because of theological ignorance? Are you not again proving the thrust of my post here, Tim? Namely, that Calvinists are trying to exclude non-Calvinists—in this case from writing SS literature—because, from the Calvinists’ perspective, non-Calvinists are theologically ignorant? Is this what you wish to be your contribution to this thread?

Finally, you sign off celebrating the foregone conclusion—at least in your eyes anyway—that the “future of the SBC is bright and it is Reformed.”  One hardly knows what to say to this. I guess I can thank you for clarifying your real position. I had no idea you were a staunch Calvinist wishing for the trend at Lifeway to continue when I first began to read your “review” of my post. I thought you to be sincerely offering insight into the SS materials I had not considered. Instead you only managed to drive the wedge deeper still into the block of wood by celebrating the Calvinization of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Well know this, Tim: I shall continue employing my assumed “theological ignorance” in resisting Southern Baptists such as yourself who encourage the theological cleansing of rank “Arminians” from the SBC.

Lord bless.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Tuggle,

Just a couple of questions. First, as a convention of Baptists why are we reaching outside of the convention to find curriculum writers and paying who knows how much consulting fees for someone like a DA Carson? Second, why not answer Brother Peter's question concerning a panel of Arminians putting together a curriculum for the convention.

One other question. The title of this curriculum is "The Gospel Project". Since it is evident the soteriological perspective of those involved is Calvinist, would you say that Gospel is defined as Calvinism?

You say;

"A person may not agree with the soteriology espoused by Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Augustine and others, but if weren’t for them, we would all probably be listening to the Mass in Latin every week."

That is nonsense. God would have raised someone else up and we would not be "listening to the Mass in Latin". We are where we are today because of the sovereign grace of God, bestowed on each of us who have freely decided to accept His Word and His Will for our life.

Blessings,
Tim

[Tim Tuggle]

Mr. Lumpkins,
I serve as a Sunday School teacher at CrossPoint Baptist Church and have reviewed The Gospel Project lesson samples and your related blog post. With respect, I thought that a reply to your post might provide some insight from a simple Sunday School teacher.

In terms of the lesson material, I see no overt or covert attempt in The Gospel Project material to indoctrinate any one into any thing except a thorough and full-orbed Biblical theology.
Insights from both non-Reformed sources (e.g., C.S. Lewis) and Reformed sources (e.g., Francis Schaeffer) are used.
Aside from a general reference in one instance to the thought of the Reformers, there is no mention of ‘Reformed’ or ‘Calvinism’.

The use of biblical insights from many of our forefathers helps us to put into practice the command of Hebrews 13:7: “Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith.” How can we imitate those we don’t know about? It is the height of chronological snobbery for anyone to imply that they don’t have anything to say to us. A person may not agree with the soteriology espoused by Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Augustine and others, but if weren’t for them, we would all probably be listening to the Mass in Latin every week.

Based on previous use of Lifeway Bible study / Sunday School material (e.g., LifeLessons, etc.) for many years, I am not aware of any Lifeway policy that requires the authors to disclose their views on soteriology.

In regards to the editors / contributors to The Gospel Project or any other Lifeway series, a set of Google searches would provide enough background material / links to determine the theological beliefs of most any author. I perceive no attempt to conceal the theological leanings of the authors of this new series or any other series.

It almost sounds as if there is a desire to have those with Reformed views to, in effect, sew a tulip on their documents so that they can be properly identified.
Fine, but in all fairness, let’s come up with a symbol of the supposed sovereign free will touted by Arminian authors and contributors, so they can be identified for where they stand.
The Baptist Faith and Message covers everything from a one-pointer to a five-pointer, so neither of these are real options.

If I may be permitted to generalize, given the trail of destruction left across thousands of SBC congregations by Arminian theology and leadership in the SBC over the last, say, 75 to 100 years, don’t you think we might want to listen to those in the Reformed camp? Studies have shown that large percentages of the membership of an average SBC congregation do not participate in corporate worship with any regularity. For those members that do participate in corporate worship, other studies have shown no statistical difference between them and the secular population - in terms of abortion, divorce, child abuse, etc. The salt has most certainly lost its savor, if it ever had it in the first place. I realize that there will always be goats mixed in with the sheep, but when half of many SBC congregations give all evidence of being in the goat category, something is wildly wrong. The first place to start looking for the source of the problem is the long-standing theology practiced by the majority of the congregations in the SBC – an Arminianism that glorifies decisional regeneration, worships at the altar of free will and, most significantly, tramples on the accomplished atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Given the fruits of a century of Arminian theology and influence in the SBC, I say its time to listen to those in the Reformed camp.

Whether or not you want to listen to them, the Reformed SBC leaders will be heard, and for a long time to come. SBTS has been and is graduating droves of them. They are also coming out, in increasing numbers, from Southeastern and New Orleans seminaries. Some may try to delay this trend with characterizations of Reformed theology that seem to play on theological ignorance, but the future of the SBC is bright and it is Reformed.

I look forward to that Day when these disputations will no longer be our focus.

Your brother in Christ,
Tim Tuggle

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

Am I to understand that we have 6 seminaries and some of the leading pastors in the world in the SBC and could not find people that are Southern Baptist to head up this initiative? Wow!! When Lifeway changed their name from The Baptist Sunday School Board it was so we could make a better impact and change the doctrinal stance of the Evangelical world, not the other way around. What we have here is the result of less than a decade of the name change.

Blessings,
Tim

[Mary]

This is just another leg of the SBC that is now being used to promote Calvinism. The seminaries are disproportionately promoting Calvinism - two seminaries are not serving the entire SBC, but a a small segment, and now Lifeway has chosen it seems to not serve the entire SBC, but a small segment.

Many of us are watching the NAMB with concern that it is now going to be focusing on serving the minority with the majorities money.

They get away with this because the churches do not know and unless some of the churches start speaking loudly - with their money - it's going to continue.

It's already hard enough if you're a nonCalvinist church trying to fill a ministry position, now if Lifeway goes in this direction where will the nonCalvinist churches go for curriculum? How many new nonCalvinist church plants will the NAMB fund?

But yeah, there's no Calvinist agenda to see here.

[peter lumpkins]

Robert,

Thanks for your sober response. And I think your observation is spot-on concerning the foreign ecclesial allegiance so many of the team members possess. One of the council members--James MacDonald--is anti-congregationalism to the core, making a provocative statement only recently implying congregationalism is demonic in nature! Yet we reward such anti-baptistic views with an Advisory Council appointment on a new curriculum.

I think you are both judicious and correct to query whether critics like myself would have been satisfied had Lifeway been completely upfront about the predictable Calvinistic slant the new series is bound to possess. Candidly I respond, yes and no. For sure, most of the air would have bled out of my tires on this post had Lifeway been upfront. I loudly complain about the assumed posture the material takes without a hint that a sizable majority of SBC churches would not choose the material if they knew the Reformed theological lens through which it is conceived.

On the other hand, there remains some significant but perhaps lessor objections to Lifeway spending massive amounts of resources on a curriculum theologically tilted toward so few churches in the convention. In short, why must we have an exclusively Calvinist or non-Calvinist curriculum at all? In addition, being a non-Calvinist myself, I could always take issue with the theological lens employed, keeping in mind that my brother down the street may perfectly agree with the materials’ theological presuppositions.

For the record, I just got off the phone with a Calvinist friend of mine as we discussed this issue (yes, he strongly embraces all 5 points!). I said to him what I now express here: ultimately I don’t give two shakes of a gnat’s behind who writes the material. We have both Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC. So I have no problem with Calvinists and non-Calvinists preparing Bible studies for our churches. However, this is not what is taking place with this curriculum. The obvious, more-than-reasonable-share of the theological slant tilts toward Calvinism, a theological view which arguably boasts no such presence or place in our convention. And, for my part, it would be a hard case to make in defending Lifeway’s decision on this.

With that, I am…

Peter

[Max]

Pam Knight writes "I wish there were a way to get this kind of information into all the churches that simply do not have any idea about who is writing the curriculum for their church."

This has been a concern of mine, as well. While the YRR furiously network on social media, majority Southern Baptists don't. Nor do they read good blogs like this one. They rely on State denominational newspapers and/or local leadership to keep them informed on critical SBC issues. Unfortunately, both avoid the controversy. In the meantime, YRR agendas move forward. Before you know it, a bunch of them will get together over at LifeWay and produce some questionable literature!

[Robert Vaughn]

Slightly different from the topic focus, but reading through the list I was struck by the number of churches listed who either are not Baptist or do not identify as Baptist.

And perhaps off-topic, I agree with Max (and R.C. Sproul) that a person who really understands the other four points should believe in limited atonement. This is true if we approach "Calvinism" as a system that is consistently logical internally. I think this oft-found inconsistency indicates Baptists in general are often more concerned with figuring out what is biblical, even if it doesn't always seem the most logical.

Peter mentioned the Reformed nature of the new Bible study curriculum being mentioned upfront in order for churches to make informed decisions about their purchase. This seems quite sensable. I wonder if Calvinists would object to this, and if non-Calvinists would be satisfied if this concession were made?

[Mary]

it's disturbing this coopting of the word "gospel" which as we know from reading Founders et al = Calvinism.

Sorta of the same thing has happened with the phrase "great commission" which means = "let's plant Calvnist churches because the seminaries are only producing Calvinists and these darn nonCalvinists are not so hip on the reformation of the SBC"

[peter lumpkins]

Fred,

Good for you. I'm glad you took the time to read the one lesson provided, emphasis please on the one lesson. And, your conclusion is quite confusing. You write, "Mr. Wax is adjudged to be a Calvinist, not because he's a 5-pointer or because he self-identifies as one, but because he's a 4-pointer AND is friendly toward guys at The Gospel Coalition." Excuse me, I made it clear concerning Wax that he is confusing and gave the links for it. You and others can make up your own mind whether adhering to the 1689 London Confession makes one a strong Calvinist (i.e. holding to 5 Points).

What is more, you simply skew Wax's relationship with The Gospel Coalition--"friendly toward guys at The Gospel Coalition." He is more than friendly; he is officially one with them in their community of Reformed bloggers. Is this not tacit admission he is himself Reformed?

Now as for my personal statement on my profile page, I haven't the least reserve in affirming it all. What I am concerned about is the Calvinization of the SBC, and Lifeway's latest curriculum stands as just another piece of the evidence that Calvinists are more deeply embedded in the SBC than most people realize.

Hence, Fred, if you have no reservations about the Bible study materials at your church, then by all means, order it. On the other hand, there are masses of churches in the SBC that would not consciously order materials for Sunday School if the material presented a Calvinistic slant. Consider my piece here a trumpet blast to state who the writers are and the theological position to which they adhere. If I am incorrect, you may correct about the authors, I encourage correction.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Pam Knight]

I wish there were a way to get this kind of information into all the churches that simply do not have any idea about who is writing their curriculum for their church.
In Christ
pam knight

[lmalone]

"You didn't provide any evidence that they are "pushing Calvinism." Im a Calvinist, but that doesn't mean if I wrote curriculum it would be a curriculum that "pushes calvinism."

Matt, I would be curious as to how you could help from weaving the Calvinistic determinism into any Christian curriculum since it is the foundation of the Calvinist system.

I think the problem is you used the word "pushing" and that means you want to direct the dialogue by defining the terms of the conversation. Is it really that big of a leap to think that New Calvinists would not weave determinism into the curriculum?

Actually, I have less of a problem with "Calvinism" than I do with the New Calvinism which melds Justification and Sanctification and focuses on only one of God's attributes to the neglect of other important attributes and tries to convince people they are totally depraved after being Born Again. In fact, little is mentioned about the New Birth in Neo Calvinism. And no, I am not going to prove it to you. I came to this conclusion listing to the New Calvinst celeb preachers over the last 10 or so years.

It is quite interesting that many contributers are not SBC at all. I suspect we are to see more and more of that in days to come. Personally, I would rather see Jane or John Doe of Podunk Baptist church who have faithfully lived for Christ for years as contributers than the celebrities. But I guess Jane or John would not sell as well or are not as exciting?

[peter lumpkins]

All,

I find some of the reasoning in this thread just one pint shy of ridiculous. For example, one commenter reasons: "Im [sic] a Calvinist, but that doesn't mean if I wrote curriculum it would be a curriculum that "pushes calvinism[sic]"

First, some people cannot seem to get beyond a title in a post. That is, they read the title and think they understand what is being communicated. I learned in grade school one cannot go by a headline in a newspaper or title of a magazine article to understand the author’s piece. Instead, one must read the article…engage the article, not the headline. Yet this commenter takes my headline--"pushes Calvinism"--and makes out as if that's precisely and exclusively what my complaint was about in this post. The fact is, I emphasized clearly and concisely my primary concern with The Gospel Project in the very first paragraph of my commentary:

In short, The Gospel Project Bible studies are overwhelmingly prepared by Calvinists (italics original!).

And, I went on to engage and tease out that concern. Instead of engaging my primary concern, the commenter picked up my title “pushes Calvinism” and ignored what I directly stated I meant by the title. This is one reason why comment threads are becoming more and more vacuous. It’s really discouraging sometimes.

Second, let's suppose Dr. Roger Olson announced he was appointed general editor of a new Sunday School curriculum project. He along with several gospel writers and advisors including Scot McKnight, Matthew Pinson, F. Leroy Forlines, Jerry Walls, James Leonard, Stephen Ashby, Ben Witherington, Robert Picirilli, Grant Osbourne, and any number of other capable people from The Society of Evangelical Arminians formed a project team for the curriculum. Dr. Olson announced the project would be called “The Gospel Scheme” and specifically designed as a theologically driven project which will focus on the profound truths of Scripture.

To suggest we would not expect this theologically sophisticated group of exclusively, self-professing Arminian theologians, pastors, and scholars to produce a Bible study curriculum without a definable Arminian flavor is much too naive to be taken seriously. Yet some have the audacity to assume we should not expect a similar theological slant from an exclusive group of convinced Calvinists. The disingenuousness of such a proposal cannot be matched with words.

With that, I am…

Peter     

[Fred Johnson]

I am definitively conservative theologically and decidedly Baptist by conviction. Yet I find myself eager to dialog with those not of my spiritual DNA. Personally, I think my journey enriched, not threatened by, open, honest dialog.

Thus, I simply refuse to allow non-essentials to drive me from my fellow believers. "By this, all will know you are my disciples", Jesus said, "if you have love for one another."

For a person who practices guilt by association to the extreme as does Mr. Lumpkins to have written the above is beyond belief. In his world, anyone who refuses to allow non-essentials to drive them from Calvinists is worthy of judgment. Thus Mr. Wax is adjudged to be a Calvinist, not because he's a 5-pointer or because he self-identifies as one, but because he's a 4-pointer AND is friendly toward guys at The Gospel Coalition.

When I read the samples, I saw nothing explicitly Calvinistic and congratulate LifeWay on what appears to be a fantastic course of study.

By the way, I am not a Calvinist.

[peter lumpkins]

Cal,

I'd be concerned about any staff member no matter the theological persuasion who failed to mention a key doctrinal slant in ordering new material, especially if the material was of a doctrinal slant not in line with the church's theological heritage.

As for reading the material, I did read the material--at least all that is available. And, I will continue to do so.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Bob Hadley]

This is indeed a sad day...

>&ly>"

[peter lumpkins]

Matt Svoboda

Precisely. I only showed 19 people involved in completing the project, virtually all of whom are Calvinists. I can see why you'd think I offered no evidence. How stupid of me.

With that, I am...
Peter

P.S. Please don't expect a long exchange, Matt. You offered an entirely unfair, unjust criticism of Tim Rogers on this post. And when I showed how your concern was bogus, asking questions here, here, here, here, and here, you quietly walked away as if you’d nonetheless proved your point. Hence, learn to deal with others' questions or do not expect them to acknowledge yours.

[Cal]

"Think also of a staff member who would have few scruples in ordering the material for particular groups but not informing the church of the theological underpinnings of Calvinism the materials possess. A scenario like this could be devastating for individual churches."

Really? You're now concerned about sneaky Calvinist staff members ordering Lifeway Bible Study material for their church to hypnotize and brainwash the unsuspecting members? Oh, the devastation!!
Maybe you'd be willing to actually read through the material before saying that it could be devastating to churches?

[Max]

The primary concern of this blog piece is the introduction of literature into mainline Southern Baptist churches by contributors with a definite reformed leaning ... by the hand of our once trusted publishing arm. The issue is not whether contributors are 4-point or 5-point Calvinists. Having said that ... reformed pastor and author R.C. Sproul suggests there is confusion about what the doctrine of limited atonement actually teaches and claims that a person who really understands the other four points must believe in limited atonement because of what Martin Luther called a "resistless logic” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amyraldism . Majority Southern Baptists do not believe in limited atonement. LifeWay should not hand us a teaching resource produced by contributors who have theological views which run contrary to the belief and practice of our majority membership.

[Matt]

You didn't provide any evidence that they are "pushing Calvinism." Im a Calvinist, but that doesn't mean if I wrote curriculum it would be a curriculum that "pushes calvinism."

[peter lumpkins]

@TheKryptonian

Well, no the indoctrination of Calvinism is disappointing in the very same sense that perhaps you would believe the indoctrination of Arminianism would be disappointing.

With that, I am...
Peter

[TheKryptonian]

"However, the indisputably clear majority of Southern Baptist churches may be thoroughly disappointed to know their adults, youth, and children can now be subtly indoctrinated into the doctrines of grace"

Um ... grace is disappointing?

[peter lumpkins]

Jon & Les,

Thanks. While I am often critical of aggressive Calvinists being particularly 5-point Calvinists (e.g Founders-type Calvinists), I am under no impression that only 5 point Calvinism can be rightly called Calvinism. This seems to be a prominent definition of Calvinism particularly promoted by Founders.

As for Akin, he self-identifies as an Amyraldian (around the 52.00 mark), a position very much within the Calvinist theological paradigm albeit a moderate Calvinist position.

Trevin Wax is somewhat confusing. He says here he is a “four-pointer” but earlier he seems to have embraced a stronger position (assuming it’s the 1689 Confession about which he claimed to adhere). If he changed his mind it does not seem evident exactly where. Whatever the case, being officially identified with The Gospel Coalition is surely enough credentials to list him as a Calvinist.

Finally, for Ed Stetzer, one is not going to get blatant theological pronouncements from Stetzer. However, common sense tells us one is not going to be speaking at Founders Conferences and promoting Acts 29 unless one has a theological affinity with Reformed theology. If this is not enough evidence for you guys, it most certainly is to me.

There's just too many connections to ignore.

With that, I am…

Peter  

[Jon]

That is, Akin rejects limited atonement...as does Wax.

[Jon]

You denote Akin as a moderate Calvinist and Wax as simply a Calvinist?

What's the difference between the two? I know rejects the classic limited atonement position. I also know, from personal debate with wax over lunch, he does as well.

What other differences do they hold? Or were you assuming Wax is a 5-pointer?

[Leslie Puryear]

Peter,

Allow me, if you will, a little pick to nit. :)

I don't know that Dr. Stetzer is a Calvinist theologically. I know him a bit and I have never personally heard him take a position that could be construed as Calvinist. Also, I don't ever recall reading anywhere that he self-identified as a Calvinist. In my Small Church Leadership meeting in Nashville in 2009, Dr. Stetzer was very gracious to come and encourage small church pastors there. Again, I heard nothing from him that hinted of Calvinism.

Also, I have been in meetings with J. D., and I have heard him self-identify as a "4-pointer." IMHO, one is not truly Reformed or a Calvinist unless he or she is a 5-pointer, but that's just me.

I agree that the remaining people are problematic from a theological view. However, I would like to actually read the study before making a pronouncement on it.

Perhaps you have information which will refute my thoughts on Dr. Stetzer and J. D. If so, that's okay too. :)

Leslie Puryear

[Max]

This is no surprise to me. LifeWay has been a Calvinist publishing house for some time now, particularly targeting younger folks. Past issues of LifeWay's "Life Matters" Sunday School literature for young adults have had a definite reformed slant in lesson presentation via extensive use of marginal notes by some of the same reformed influencers identified in this blog. For example, I have on my desk a Winter 2010/2011 learner guide for Life Matters "threads" which refer young adult Sunday School students to websites, sermons and publications by the following leaders in the reformed movement: John Piper, Matt Chandler, Francis Chan, Mark Driscoll, C.J. Mahaney , and Tim Keller. An obvious attempt to steer young adults in this direction via extracurricular readings and messages.

[Troy M. Long]

I have written Lifeway. I cannot believe this is being published.

Troy M. Long

First them comment on your blog.

[Tim Rogers]

Brother Peter,

From my perspective I see this as Lifeway's way to implement something that usually would have been soundly rejected. Lifeway has allowed their curriculum to go by the wayside for the past few years. I have had complaint upon complaint concerning the Sunday School Material. However, by them now offering this study we will have churches by the hundreds jumping on board with it because it is something new. For no other reason it will be embraced by the churches because nothing can get worse than what we already have.

Tim