Why I’m “All In” for The Gospel Project

Count me as one who is favorably impressed with The Gospel Project. After reviewing the online sample materials and reading about the philosophy behind Lifeway’s newest Sunday School/Small Group Bible study curriculum, I was already leaning toward using this material for our church’s preschool, children’s and student Sunday School groups this fall. I will also be encouraging our adult classes to at least try the curriculum to see if this would be a good alternative to the other Lifeway material that is currently being used.

Following Wednesday’s webcast featuring Trevin Wax, Matt Chandler, J.D. Greear, and Ed Stetzer, I am “all in” for The Gospel Project. Why the enthusiasm? In a word (well, two words really), Matt Chandler. He sold me. Not that he was trying to sell this curriculum or that I took it that way. But, his explanation of The Gospel Project — particularly the vital role that the Gospel plays in all of Scripture — was so persuasive that I believe any Southern Baptist church — Calvinist or non-Calvinist — would benefit from this material.

When so many young adults (and older ones too) have been in church — both in worship services and Sunday School/Small groups — but have been taught what Chandler describes as a “moralistic therapeutic deism,” then we need to do change the way we are “teaching” God’s Word:

The providence of God is a pretty spectacular thing… A number of years back, during a baptism service, I heard a number of testimonies that went like this: “I went to church, I went to sunday school, I went to VBS… and I’m here to say that I’ve never heard the gospel and now I want to be baptized.” The first time you hear that, it doesn’t really unsettle you, but when you hear it a bunch of times… hearing people say, I grew up in church but never heard the gospel, it hits your heart in a really heavy way. And because the Holy Spirit wouldn’t let go of me on this, I settled it by going back to these people and asking them to go through their journals and finding out whether or not they really ever heard the gospel. Some came back and said, “yeah, I did hear it but didn’t understand it,” but more came back and said that what they found was a checklist of dos and don’ts—of moralistic therapeutic deism. And so it exploded in my heart that I couldn’t assume that people in the church have heard the gospel. (Notes from #TheGospelProject Webcast)

Couldn’t Chandler’s observations apply to just about any Southern Baptist church — large or small, rural or urban, contemporary or traditional — which has been around for any length of time? I would daresay that many of our SBC churches which find themselves declining or plateaued (declining gradually) are churches where “moralistic therapeutic deism” rules. I don’t think that most pastors or Sunday School teachers mean to preach or teach with this type of philosophy, but it’s much easier to give children and students (and even adults) a checklist of dos and don’ts than to infuse the messages with the Gospel. I would hope that all Southern Baptists — regardless of their soteriological or methodological positions — would welcome a resource that would help to make the Gospel more “explicit.”

Will The Gospel Project be this kind of resource? While some have raised legitimate questions about the process of bringing The Gospel Project to life, I believe that the teaching materials will be such that a broad spectrum of Southern Baptist churches will profit from their use. However, the proof, as they say, will be in the pudding, but the pudding looks to be quite delectable, much like a good, homemade banana pudding that you would find at a church potluck in the south. And, for those who still might have questions about The Gospel Project, just remember something else you might find in the south — old-fashioned hospitality that teaches, “don’t go knockin’ it till you try it.”

If that don’t suit, then it might even be helpful to remember what mama and grandma used to tell us when we were children, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, it’ best not to say anything at all.” In the blogging world, I wish I would have put that last one into practice more often. Probably wouldn’t be a bad thing for everybody to do (see here for an example of why that’s needed), regardless of whether you’re “all in” or “all out” for The Gospel Project.  


Comments

Why I’m “All In” for The Gospel Project — 22 Comments

    • Lydia,

      I can appreciate where you are coming from. I do think that we should use discernment when looking at “endorsements,” whether those come from large church pastors or others. I do think that the “celebrity pastor” syndrome within Evangelical Christianity and within the SBC is something to be concerned about. I do not know Matt personally, but I have been blessed by his sermons. He strikes me as having a different spirit than some of the other megachurch pastors, but I am not a member of his church, so I don’t see firsthand what goes on day to day and week to week. As to the letter, he was perhaps too harsh in his response, but I can understand the frustration of getting a guest card with a note saying, “More traditional hymns!!!” without a signature. If people would come and talk to me personally, that would be much better. I don’t usually give much credence to those anonymous comments. That being said, I think that what Matt shared yesterday was spot on. That’s one of the reasons that I’m excited to try this new material. As always, thanks for sharing your perspective. God bless,

      Howell

    • Whether Mr. Chandler has “become too much of a celebrity,” is, I think, up for considerable debate.

      Nevertheless, more than about Matt Chandler, this resource largely represents a much needed effort to recapture the central message of the Christian faith, namely, the Gospel–God’s good news for sinners. As R.C. Sproul rightly pointed out, “There is no greater message to be heard than that which we call the Gospel.”

      Much more could certainly be said, but suffice it to say that whether the curriculum features a ‘celebrity’ contributor or not, the Gospel is clearly articulated in this resource in a way that shows fidelity to the biblical text.

  1. I like Matt. His preaching has blessed me on a number of occasions. His testimony of God’s healing in his life is amazing. Yet, I am concerned that we may be replacing the so-called “moralistic therapeutic deism” with an equally unbalanced “Christocentric antinomian reductionism.”

    While our faith is much more than a list of do’s and don’ts, it is just as certainly not less than one. I don’t want to throw out the baby of moral teachings with the bathwater of insufficient connection to the overarching gospel narrative. Time will tell concerning the sufficiency of this new curriculum to address ALL of the Bible.

    I just wonder if the curriculum which claims to offer such superior depth is not sacrificing sufficient breadth in the process. I believe in going “Deep AND Wide.” Altogether now…

    • Rick,

      “There is a fountain flowinging deep and wide.” Hopefully that will be what The Gospel Project curriculum is all about. From what I heard yesterday, it wasn’t that the moral law was bad, but that we need to look at the moral law through the lens of the Gospel. I don’t think anyone within the broad mainstream of SBC life — Calvinists or non-Calvinists — would advocate for an unbalanced “Christcentric antinomian reductionism.” There are those on the fringes that would appear to go that far, but until Lifeway gives me a reason to believe otherwise, I will not think that this material will go in that direction. I don’t think any curriculum will or should adress ALL the Bible. There are some places in 1 Chronicles (among other books) that probably don’t lend themselves to an in-depth Bible study, regardless of what curriculum is used. I think that the grand narrative of Scripture will be addressed, at least based on the scope and sequence that has already been made public.

      I do believe that we should connect all of Scripture with Jesus, for, after all, He did say that all of Scripture pointed to Him. Granted, some Scripture is easier to point to Jesus than others, but if we leave out some type of Gospel message infused within the passage that we are preaching, then I think we do a disservice to the Word. I wish I could say I always do that in my preaching, but I do think that The Gospel Project will be a helpful tool that preachers and teachers can use as they teach from the primary source — the Bible. Hope all is well with you in Alabama. Have a great day and God bless,

      Howell

    • Rick,

      Can you define the following two phrases for me so I can better understand your objection?

      1. Moralistic therapeutic deism
      2. Christocentric antinomian reductionism

  2. Excellent blog post,

    The Gospel Project curriculum was a resource near the top of my list to obtain for the Young Adult/College Sunday School class this year. I’m currently participating in the preview program and I’ve been thoroughly encouraged.

  3. Christocentric antinomian is something I believe non-existant and is a reason why some believe they need to give morality lessons. Basically the thought is that if the belief is that God does not any longer see our sin because of what Christ has done for us, we will run amuck and sin like crazy and it would be OK with God because He of course sees no sin.

    There are only two words I have to answer that charge. Holy Spirit who is in us and the New Creation Paul speaks of in 2 Corinthians 5:14-21. We no longer want to sin. The more we learn of what Christ has done for us and how the whole Bible points to Christ, the more our affections for Christ are and it is out of that deep love and devotion we do not want to sin but long to be holy.

    • Debbie,

      That is a pretty good summation of those who might worry about a “Christocentric antinomianism.” This argument is similar to those who think that “once saved, always saved” allows people to do whatever they want to do — including continuing to sin — because they are “saved.” Paul has some choice words for those who think that and his words are not complimentary. Our holiness (or moral living/righteousness) should be motivated by the Gospel. And, as the Gospel is Christocentric, this should permeate throughout Scripture. Thanks for reading and taking the time to share. Hope things are well with you in Enid. God bless,

      Howell

  4. Brother Howell,

    First, I disagree with your change of heart on this matter. I respect that you may be sensing something and only you must determine if this is the Holy Spirit or if you are feeling abandoned by those who you once considered your friends. I respect you analysis but believe you have over-stepped on this one. First I want to give you an analysis of Matt Chandler’s speech (that you highlighted thus it seems to be the crux of your position) and then express a huge disagreement with you.

    “The providence of God is a pretty spectacular thing”

    Matt is not speaking about the “providence” of God as it relates to any scriptural understanding but as a philosophical system that is filtered through his Calvinism. Thus, your reference has him beginning with a divine determinism that he bases his entire talk on and it will be clearly seen in the lessons that come out of Lifeway.

    “I went to church, I went to Sunday school, I went to VBS… and I’m here to say that I’ve never heard the gospel and now I want to be baptized.”

    How many times have I heard this in my 20 + years of preaching? Many!!! Does that mean that the preachers before me never preached the Gospel? According to the Gospel Project it means the Gospel before this project was nothing more than a “moralistic therapeutic deism”. While I have had serious concerns about the Lifeway material, I also know we do not need to implement an entire new division within the Sunday School Material department to get it right. What we have here is an entire new division (Can you say “bloated bureaucracy?) being put together in order to appeal to young Calvinists. To appeal to its target audience, the material will be Calvinistic in its theology.

    “…going back to these people and asking them to go through their journals and finding out whether or not they really ever heard the gospel.”

    Wow!! This statement is really one that defies the clear understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit that enables the person to hear the Gospel. Now, what Chandler means through this statement is they never “really ever heard the theological teachings of Calvin.”

    “Some came back and said, “yeah, I did hear it but didn’t understand it,” but more came back and said that what they found was a checklist of dos and don’ts—of moralistic therapeutic deism.”

    I mean really? Isn’t that what lost people hear when they hear the clear teaching of the Word of God? Chandler is not speaking about saved people in his church he is speaking about people that were lost attending his church and getting saved. Thus, a lost person is not going to hear the Word of God. (1 Corinthians 2:14) (Sarcasm Alert) Has Chandler lost an understanding of all of Paul’s letters? Is he so focused on Romans 9 that he cuts 1 Corinthians 2:13-14 out of his bible? (End Sarcasm Alert)

    And so it exploded in my heart that I couldn’t assume that people in the church have heard the gospel.

    Once again, his Calvinism comes shining forth. He is completely right on this statement, however… No one can assume that anyone sitting in the pew has accepted the Gospel. To state that someone has never “heard the Gospel” states clearly that the Gospel has never been presented. Yes faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Yes, it is by Grace that one is saved and it is not of works lest any man should boast. I agree 100% that salvation is the Gospel and is a 100% work of Jesus Christ. However, just hearing the Gospel does not make you saved. In Chandler’s statement he has removed completely the responsibility of Man. The only responsibility that Chandler seems to place on a person is getting baptized.

    Now my disagreement with you.

    “for those who still might have questions about The Gospel Project, just remember something else you might find in the south – old-fashioned hospitality that teaches, “don’t go knockin’ it till you try it.”

    (Sarcasm alert)Have you absolutely lost your mind? (End Sarcasm Alert) Seriously, if I were to take that as my philosophy I would be a CBF’er, a Calvinist, an Arminian, a Neo-orthdoxist, you get the picture. I do not have to “try” something to know it is not correct. This debate is not about whether or not we should allow this material to be produced by Lifeway. This debate is about Lifeway forcing down the throats of Southern Baptists a theology that is not the theology of the majority of the convention. This is about the small group of elitists forcing down the throats of us dumb rednecks a more sophisticated theology because it appeals to the wine bibbers and baby baptizers.

    I love you bro, I just adamantly disagree with you.

    Blessings,
    Tim

    • Bro. Tim,

      Tell me how you really feel :-) I appreciate you sharing your candid thoughts and observations about The Gospel Project and what Matt Chandler had to say on Wednesday. I’m not sure how I’ve had a change of heart on the matter (if, by matter, you are talking specifically about The Gospel Project). Even though I think there are legitimate questions as to how this new curriculum came into being, I have always said that I was intrigued by the material and that it was something that I would seriously consider using. As an inconsistent Calvinist, I perhaps do not have the qualms that others might have about the doctrinal aspects of this material. I also am probably filtering Matt Chandler’s talk through my own prism just as you are filtering it through your prism. As our two prisms are not exactly synced, it is not surprising that you would interpret his words differently than I did.

      That being said, I think it would benefit everyone, including those who have strong reservations about the material, to give our brothers at Lifeway the benefit of the doubt when it comes to what will be in this material. That is, unless we have reason to believe that those involved — Dr. Rainer, Dr. Stetzer, Trevin Wax, Matt Chandler, etc. — are out and out lying about the content of this curriculum. I simply do not think that is the case, although I could certainly be proven wrong. However, I do not believe that it does anyone any good to continue to question that which we can only speculate about, namely what will be included in the actual teaching materials of the curriculum. Thus my admonition, “Don’t go knockin’ it till you try it.” You don’t have to “try” something in the sense that you have to purchase the materials for your church. However, I think it would be prudent to take Lifeway at their word and see what is produced. If, as you strongly suspect, that the material will have an overtly Calvinistic doctrine interwoven throughout, then address that when it happens. As it stands now, we have only the first four lessons available.

      As you know, I have been outspoken against what I perceive as an “elitist” mentality that pervades the SBC. Is The Gospel Project a case of a “small group of elitists forcing down the throats of us dumb rednecks a more sophisticated theology because it appeals to the wine bibbers and baby baptizers?” In one sense, the answer is no because no one will be “forced” to buy this material. In another sense, I suppose the jury is still out. I do think that Lifeway made a strategic blunder when they assembled the advisory board. It seems to be lopsided in favor of those who are fairly well-known as Calvinists or Reformed in their theology. I’m not so sure this was intentional as it was that these guys run around in the same circles (which, yes, happen to be Calvinistic) and they felt comfortable with one another. It maybe a matter more of not knowing a whole lot of guys (or having good relationships with guys) outside of their own circle. Some of the early comments from those involved (i.e., “churches want a more in-depth Bible study that is Gospel centered”) came across as dismissive of the current curriculum, as if it was not in-depth or somehow not Gospel centered. If our current Lifeway literature is not these things, then we need to get writers who will fix this obviously glaring problem post haste! All that to say that Lifeway should have been aware that The Gospel Project would be perceived — rightly or wrongly — as a Reformed curriculum. Knowing the volatile nature of the Calvinism debate within the SBC, Lifeway simply did not do a good job of rolling this new curriculum out. That has produced negative reaction that quite possibly could have been avoided from the very beginning.

      I’m not saying that you will be proven wrong regarding the “wine bibbers and baby baptizers” comment (although I hope you are wrong about that), but that this comment is not one, IMO, that is appropriate at this stage of the game, given the facts that we know. If Lifeway allows The Gospel Project to go in that direction, then I think we will have much bigger problems than a Sunday School curriculum. Hope that helps to clarify where I am on the matter. Thanks and God bless,

      Howell

      • Brother Howell,

        Wow!! You went on as long as I did. :) Let me respond with a cut and past back and fort with you.

        That being said, I think it would benefit everyone, including those who have strong reservations about the material, to give our brothers at Lifeway the benefit of the doubt…

        I did give them the benefit of the doubt and they put together a major initiative with only solidly theologically Calvinists, some of whom are not even Southern Baptists, and name it “The Gospel Project”. So much for a “benefit of the doubt.”

        In one sense, the answer is no because no one will be “forced” to buy this material.

        So you do not think Lifeway in a couple of years will post an announcement that since the inception of “The Gospel Project” they are going to cancel all other projects and only produce The Gospel Project for the Sunday Schools in the SBC. Or, better yet, Lifeway announces a partnership with The Gospel Coalition for other Sunday School material. But, let me give them the “benefit of the doubt.”

        I’m not saying that you will be proven wrong regarding the “wine bibbers and baby baptizers” comment (although I hope you are wrong about that), but that this comment is not one, IMO, that is appropriate at this stage of the game, given the facts that we know. If Lifeway allows The Gospel Project to go in that direction, then I think we will have much bigger problems than a Sunday School curriculum.

        Let me explain the “wine bibbers and baby baptizers” comment. It was not meant to be literal but metaphorical. The metaphor is that to the known YR&R being known as freely accepting of the social use of beverage alcohol and their penchant for everything Presbyterian. Now since you and then Bro Bill seem to be interpreting this as literal I want to set that straight. Thus, if you feel that comment is uncalled for then I will remove it and call attention to the focus for this “Gospel Project”–the young pastors that have man crushes on Tim Keller, Mark Driscoll, R.C. Sproul, and others outside of SB life.

        Blessings,
        Tim

        • Bro. Tim,

          You should know by now that former lawyers turned pastors are doubly long-winded — we used to get paid by the word :-) I do believe that Lifeway should have included a wider spectrum of folks on their advisory board. For whatever reason, they did not. I think that this naturally led to legitimate questions being raised about the process that got The Gospel Project green-lit and to the publishing stage. Unless those at Lifeway — including Dr. Rainer — are blatantly lying about the motives behind this new curriculum (which I do not believe), then it would behoove those who have questions to “trust, but verify.” IF the actual curriculum ends up with an obvious Calvinist slant or does not give various interpretations on difficult passages, then I believe it would be appropriate to “call” Lifeway on this and to point out the inconsistencies in what they are saying now verses what is actually published.

          I maybe naive on this point, but I cannot fathom Lifeway cancelling all other Sunday School/Bible study curriculum and only offering The Gospel Project. I also cannot see Lifeway “partnering” with TGC for other Sunday School material. IF that were to happen, this Calvinist will be very vocal about that direction (and it won’t be a positive vocal). Stranger things have happened, but this would not be in the best interests of the SBC or Lifeway. That’s not to say that they could not do this, but I do not think this will happen.

          Thanks for the clarification on the “wine bibbers and baby baptizers” comment. I would be interested to see Lifeway do some type of research targeting the YR&R wing of the SBC to determine what percentage of this group has a more open view of alcohol use and a more accepting view of elders (and other aspects often associated with a more Presbyterian eccesiology). Although there are non-Southern Baptists pastors and theologians who have beneficial things to contribute to all Evangelicals (including Southern Baptists), many SB pastors and leaders do seem to identify more with those who are non-SBC. In terms of local church autonomy, that’s not necessarily bad. In terms of broad cooperation at the state and national SBC levels, that looks to be an increasingly divisive thing. I’m not sure how that will play itself out in the next few years, but it seems that our divide will grow wider, not narrower, because of it. And, heaven help me if anyone ever has a “man crush” on me ;-) Thanks and God bless,

          Howell

  5. To Pastor Tim Rogers:

    “Matt is not speaking about the “providence” of God as it relates to any scriptural understanding but as a philosophical system that is filtered through his Calvinism.”

    Wow, just wow. Well, at least you laid your cards on the table. If there is an SBC split between the Particular Baptists and the General Baptists, it will be because of people like you with attitudes like this. I guess Lottie Moon, Charles Spurgeon, Adoniram Judson, William Carey etc. were adhering to a philosophical system as opposed to scripture also. And to think that people like this accuse Calvinists of making hateful vicious attacks against THEM?

    “I respect that you may be sensing something and only you must determine if this is the Holy Spirit or if you are feeling abandoned by those who you once considered your friends.”

    And you questioned Pastor Scott’s discernment? Pardon me, but who do you think you are? What gives you the qualifications, the authority, the right to make such comments? Who made you a judge of someone’s knowledge of scripture or discernment? Accusing him of endorsing this because “feeling abandoned by those who you once considered your friends’? If you are among these friends, then who needs enemies? Such vile presumptuous arrogance unworthy of the dignity of respect … simply appalling!

    “This is about the small group of elitists forcing down the throats of us dumb rednecks a more sophisticated theology because it appeals to the wine bibbers and baby baptizers.”

    A false charge that you knew to be false when you made it. But I see that you are not above making them. Based on that, it is very difficult to conclude that you are truthful when you state “I love you.”

    • Bro. Job,

      In all due respec, I do not think I directed anything to you. Now, I will be glad to discuss the blockquote that Bro. Howell based his article on. Here is the issue. When Chandler uses the term “the Gospel” he is speaking about “a Calvinist soteriological system”. That is no secret, that is not reading into what he is saying, that is exactly what he is referencing. Period!

      Blessings and I love you,
      Tim

      • But Tim,

        In general, Reformed theology, even in its soteriology, certainly falls within the pale of biblical orthodoxy.

        In fact, as Job pointed out earlier, there have been many brothers and sisters throughout Baptist history who have come from the Reformed tradition. Not to mention that many today who take the sacred name of Christ upon their lips identify with Reformed theology.

        I’ve had the opportunity to preview the curriculum and I’ve observed a fidelity to the biblical text that is refreshing.

        Obviously, don’t just take my word for it–or anyone else’s word for that matter–but instead I admonish you to read the Bible and hold fast to that which is true.

        My concern with you and some others is that you dismiss the curriculum as just an attempt by LifeWay to surreptitiously “convert” believers to Reformed Theology, when in fact, we could have a resource that, by God’s grace, could help in recapturing the Gospel for this generation.

        • Brother Milton,

          I admonish you to read the Bible and hold fast to that which is true.

          Let’s see, I do read the Bible and I find that the Bible says Jesus “is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the whole world.” Now, if you want to take the normal Calvinist position and use the “world” to me “The Elect” then you have a problem when you read further in Chapter 2. From Chapter 2:2 to Chapter 2:15 we see that the Apostle does not use the word “world” again. In chapter 2:15 it is the same word used and the context is the same in that the Apostle is writing to believers encouraging them to remain pure and instructing them in their spiritual walk. Now, if the Apostle was speaking of the “elect” being referenced in 2:2 then he has to mean the “elect” in 2:15. That would be preposterous so the only way to coincide the two has to be the same word meaning the same thing–the world.

          Thus, I read the bible and hold fast to that which is true.

          My concern with you and some others is that you dismiss the curriculum as just an attempt by LifeWay to surreptitiously “convert” believers to Reformed Theology, when in fact, we could have a resource that, by God’s grace, could help in recapturing the Gospel for this generation. I tell you what. Give me a one sentence definition of the “Gospel”.

          Blessings,
          Tim

  6. Perhaps this is happening on the Calvinist side as well, but we are seeing a sharp escalation in the non-Calvinist rhetoric lately. The suspicions are deeper, the exchanges more vitriolic. I don’t think I’ve seen anyone explicitly call anyone involved in this project a liar, but much of what I have seen amounts to as much. It does not bode well. I honestly don’t know what this new curriculum has to do with alcohol consumption or paedobaptism. I would be surprised to see either topic addressed in this curriculum, and I would be astounded to see paedobaptism taught in this curriculum. The backhanded insinuation that SBC Calvinists are secretly paedobaptists is way, way out of line. And since the term winebibber essentially means a wine drinking alcoholic, I wonder specifically who is being referenced here.

    • Brother Bill,

      That is the way to do this, hold people to the specific definition for their words. Now, ask Chandler to give a definition of “The Gospel”. Ask those heading the Gospel Project to define the term “The Gospel.” You will find they all go back to the various 5 Dortian Calvinist points.

      Blessings, and I love you too!!

      Tim

    • Bill,

      I agree–I’ve observed the anti-Calvinist inflammatory rhetoric recently as well.

      And I suppose I’m a bit mystified about where it is coming from, because in general, Calvinism–even in it’s soteriology–certainly falls within the pale of biblical orthodoxy.

  7. Bro. Bill,

    Also, I have not called anyone a “liar” that is your words. I will say what I am pointing to is words used that are very well understand to mean something different than their audience, as a whole, understands them to be. We used to call it “double-speak” when the moderates did it, I honestly don’t think it is any different when the conservatives do it.

    Blessings,
    Tim

  8. Tim,

    I have not seen the new material, so I do not know what definition of the word Gospel they are using. I would assume, with the name being what it is, the early lessons or preface or something must contain a working definition of the word. I would be disappointed if whatever definition they use is not acceptable to both Calvinists and non-Calvinists. My definition of the Gospel did not change when I became a Calvinist. I know zero about Chandler, so I can’t speak to his definition.

    If you did not mean wine bibbers and baby baptizers literally, I can only assume you meant it to be insulting. The only thing “presbyterian” about Southern Baptists is that some churches have adopted an elder-led model of governance, which is not incompatible with congregational polity nor is it incompatible with the BFM, so I don’t see the problem there. Most mega-churches have a similar structure even if they use different words. I’m not an expert on presbyterianism so I don’t know if there is some other overlap that you are referencing. If a church has discarded congregationalism completely (and lets face it, mega-churches are only barely congregational) then they shouldn’t be SBC.

    No, you didn’t call anyone a liar, as I stipulated in my post. But many if not most of the very vocal naysayers for this curriculum have said it, in my opinion, without saying it. The folks involved in this project have said it isn’t about Calvinism. The opponents of the project say that it is. I don’t know how the latter can be true without the former being liars (unless the former are just stupid).

    For the record: I also know zero about Tim Keller. I think Driscoll is a misogynist fruitcake. Sproul is ok but I don’t think he has much to offer Baptists. Piper is good in a lot of ways but he tries to shoehorn everything into his Christian Hedonism paradigm. Mohler’s “there’s no alternative but being Reformed” is offbase, and I am not a fan of culture warriors in general. I have liked what I have seen from Dever and some of the NCT guys.

Leave a Reply