• /
  • /
  • Ralph Green’s Evidence of Calvinist Bias and Indoctrination in LifeWay’s Gospel Project

Ralph Green’s Evidence of Calvinist Bias and Indoctrination in LifeWay’s Gospel Project

Joshua —  August 21, 2012 — 4 Comments

Twenty days ago, SBC Today, a blog owned and operated by Emir Caner and Truett-McConnell College faculty, posted a previously published blog post by a Southern Baptist pastor in Maryland, Ralph Green. The post criticized LifeWay’s new and very popular Sunday School curriculum, the Gospel Project. According to Green:

We found it to be biased in how it explains and interprets the study themes. There are numerous subtle seeds of the Calvinistic approach to Scripture and many that are overtly obvious. The more we read and studied the curriculum, the more convinced we have become convinced that this curriculum is not suitable for use here at Calvary. I am greatly disappointed because there is nothing wrong with healthy dialogue and wrestling with theological issues. But when a curriculum is designed to teach only one side of the issue, it is no longer a healthy debate but indoctrination; and we cannot allow that indoctrination to take place here at Calvary.

These are serious charges against LifeWay and the authors of the curriculum. As expected, many SBC pastors and laymen cried foul over Green’s accusations, especially in light of the absence of any documentation from the very material Green mailed back to LifeWay. Norm Miller, the editor at SBC Today and director of communications for Truett-McConnell College, urged those requesting evidence to be patient as he would be posting the evidence the next day. Suffice to say, the evidence promised by Miller did not appear on SBC Today for almost three weeks. Meanwhile, LifeWay announced that 300,000 people around the country will be using the Gospel Project starting September 2nd.

Reviewing Ralph Green’s Evidence of Bias and Deceptive Indoctrination

Green’s latest post, which serves to provide evidence of the Gospel Project’s Calvinist theology and bias, swung hard and missed. The post provided no more than two (two!) actual quotations from the 127 pages of material. Also, the quotations provided by Green were not even related to the theology of Calvinism.

I would like to quote and address several of Pastor Green’s assertions and accusations.

…I believe I have a responsibility to my fellow pastors and all Southern Baptists to ring the alarm bell when needed. I was alarmed at what I was reading in the Gospel Project curriculum.

I applaud Pastor Green for sounding the alarm on an issue that may cause harm to churches. However, he states that he was alarmed at what he was reading in the Gospel Project, and yet provides two quotes out of the 100+ pages of material. It is clear moving forward that Green is not alarmed by the actual material of the Gospel Project but his reservations of reading and using anything written by Calvinists.

I think it’s ironic that all these Calvinists are claiming there’s no Calvinism in TGP.

Pastor Green finds irony in Calvinists not producing evidence of Calvinism in the Gospel Project, and yet he finds no problem with his own failure to produce evidence of Calvinism in the Gospel Project. This is amazing to me.

According to Green, he was alerted to the Gospel Project’s dangerous bias by one of his deacons who read preview material online before actually receiving the full material in the mail. Regarding his deacon’s testimony to him, Green writes:

He told me, “God’s love is not evident. This isn’t theology; it’s philosophy.” He also spent countless hours reading and researching the curriculum and gave me a multi-page report of his findings.

If Green’s deacon produced a multi-page evidentiary report of Calvinism in the Gospel Project, why did Green only produce two quotes?

Green confesses his own biased preconceptions:

Next, my awareness that the advisory board is almost totally Calvinist, and many of the lesson writers are too – that gave me a predisposition toward the curriculum.

Green goes on to create a false dichotomy between a Calvinistic understanding of grace and what he calls traditional Baptist grace. There is not a monolithic Baptist doctrine of grace. This is similar to the error Malcolm Yarnell, Steve Lemke, and other Baptist Identity advocates make when stating, “Not Arminian, Not Calvinist, but Baptist.” This wording creates a false dichotomy and commits a rank category error. Baptists are comprised of both Arminians and Calvinists.

So, I had concerns that every time I read the word “grace” I wondered, “Is this the Calvinistic ‘irresistible’ grace or the traditional Baptist view of grace?” This drew my attention to other theologically laden terms in the curriculum that were not defined. That, too, was another great concern to me. I was left wondering if there wasn’t a hidden theological agenda.

It seems as though Green found fault under every bush as he shared disappointment with how ardent non-Calvinist Adrian Rogers was presented.

I did find it curious that the late Adrian Rogers was cited as a “Voice from Church History” and not a “Voice from the Church.” He was a prominent Southern Baptist, and not a Calvinist. Go figure.

One example of mere condemnatory assertion by Green deals with the graphic design of the material. Even the graphic designers involved with the Gospel Project are part of the indoctrination conspiracy.

Your examination of TGP – was it only of the Leader Guide?

No. I reviewed the youth curriculum, too, and found it to be more problematic. It’s hard enough to gain and keep the attention of middle school aged boys. But TGP’s packaging and graphical design is slick. I am concerned that TGP will indoctrinate the next generation into Calvinism.

Green’s tribalism comes out into the light in his comments regarding a phone conversation he had with Trevin Wax, the managing editor of the material.

But when Trevin told me that he was a 4-point Calvinist — this only confirmed for me that I had made the right decision in returning the curriculum.

According to Green, Wax’s work is biased merely because he is a Calvinist. This type of thinking is not only unfair and uncharitable, it is harmful to cooperation in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Green continues by attacking LifeWay, asserting they are untrustworthy and promoting destructive agendas.

I’m frustrated. I’m extremely disappointed. I feel like I’ve been deceived, and I don’t appreciate that. I will never buy another LifeWay curriculum without inspecting it from stem to stern. And you know, I shouldn’t have to work that hard on materials my own denomination produces. I don’t have time to be looking for hidden meanings. That irritates me. It bothers me that I can’t trust what LifeWay sends me.

For all of Pastor Green’s troubles and frustration, he has not provided what is frustrating and troubling him other than the fact that Calvinists have authored a Sunday School curriculum.

Finally, Green ends the interview by asserting that Calvinism necessarily hinders missions and will harm the Southern Baptist Convention.

Also, it’s hard enough to get folks to witness. They come up with every excuse as to why they can’t. If we add to that the thought that God saves who He wishes, then we think we’re excused from witnessing, but are still acceptable to God for our lack of obedience to His Great Commission.

I understand this is but one voice being used by an ever growing belligerent blog, however, this is troubling and in need of being rebuked. Pastor Green has maligned all the authors of the Gospel Project and called into question the integrity of LifeWay’s management and operation teams. He has done so not by providing evidence of such accusations but by the use of logical fallacies and guilt by association.

Pastor Green is certainly free to use whatever curriculum he desires. None of us, however, are free to bring accusations and charges of sin against one another or entities without evidence. Twenty days after the promise of evidence of bias and indoctrination, I am still waiting.

For other reviews of Pastor Ralph Green’s statements, read:

Pastor Chris Roberts - Response to Ralph Green on The Gospel Project

Mark Lamprecht - Observations on Ralph Green’s Criticisms of Lifeway’s Gospel Project

Pastor David Pitman - Of Logical Fallacies

In SBC , , , ,
permalink

Joshua

Posts Twitter Facebook

I am a disciple of the risen Christ Jesus, husband to Libby, grad student, blogger.
  • http://www.thedailybleat.com/ Joshua Breland

    Bob,

    Pastor Green’s comments about God’s sovereignty in salvation leading to a hindrance in evangelism is just untrue. I’m thankful for the work of our PCA brothers. Wasn’t Evangelism Explosion PCA?

    • Bob Cleveland

      Indeed it was; Coral Ridge Presbyterian; D. James Kennedy.

  • Drew Mery

    This is troubling and disheartening. I think Green’s own accusation of “bias” actually falls on him. It is as if he thinks his non-Calvinist theological perspective is what Baptists have always held to and what the SBC has always held to. As you pointed out Joshua, this is not the case.
    Clearly, this is the rant of someone who has formed preconceived notions of Calvinism, and hasn’t truly read Calvinistic theology. It is increasingly frustrating that many non-Calvinists, such as Green’s deacon, has this idea that Calvinism is unloving. Such makes me think they don’t truly understand the biblical teaching of God’s love. They have this very misguided and unbiblical idea of love, that God must somehow relinguish His sovereignty and allow man to take the final step in salvation for Him to be loving. In other words, for God to be sovereign in salvation would be unloving, and when we Calvinists hold to this idea of God’s absolute sovereignty we are being unloving. I rejoice that Scripture emphasizes God’s love in the context of His sovereign and effectual redeeming grace (Rom. 5:8-11; Eph. 2:1-5; 1 Jn. 4:10). It’s about what God has done, not we ourselves. Even the oft-quoted John 3:16 fits into this.
    For the sake of argument, let’s say that TGP was full of the Calvinistic perspective. What’s the curriculum about? The gospel. What do the 5-Points of Calvinism center on? The gospel. It’s about God’s sovereign and glorious grace in the gospel of Jesus Christ. It wouldn’t be surprising, therefore, if we did find many Calvinistic “statements” in this curriculum. But would that be a wrong thing? Well, I guess that all depends on one’s view of God and His redeeming grace. For someone who wants to keep God as God and man as man, it is something to rejoice in. I suppose, if someone like Green wrote the curriculum, Calvinists could also respond by saying he greatly failed to emphasize key biblical emphases of the gospel and is heavily centered on man, not God. I suppose the fact that this curriculum isn’t riddled with Calvinistic overtones, goes to show that the authors have attempted to provide a balance that may be appreciated amongst all in the SBC. It appears that Green has failed to appreciate this and is simply grinding away at his axe.
    Lastly, this whole thing about Calvinism promoting apathy toward missions and evangelism needs to stop. This accusation is nothing but the result of ignoring the history of missions (as well as contemporary missions), as well as the preaching and writing of Calvinistic leaders today. Calvinists have historically been missions-minded, as they are today. Calvinists today continue to be missions-minded and to preach and teach on missions. John Piper is just one really good example of this, who has shown that God’s sovereignty doesn’t negate or belittle missions, but in fact encourages and pushes missions. I myself am training to be a missionary. I myself know multiple Reformed or Calvinistic missionaries. And this isn’t a misapplication of our theology. It’s the proper application of our theology, for our theology of God’s sovereignty in salvation gives us hope for missions and evangelism, and keeps us from falling into the many man-centered and manipulating methods of many missions and evangelism outreaches. And may I add, it seems, from my own experience, that many of the Christians who are out there on the streets doing real evangelism, are Reformed or Calvinistic. Whereas many of these non-Calvinistic churches instead rely on advertisement and church events to draw people in. (This of course is not true in all cases, but seems to be the prevailing scene). I might also add that the emphasis among non-Calvinists for doing missions is the need for man. This is of course important and we should eagerly desire to see the lost come to salvation. We shouldn’t like the idea of multitudes upon multitudes in a Christless eternity. However, our main focus and driving force in missions ought to be the glory of God and Christ among the nations; that the name of our Triune God be exalted by all peoples, and that Christ receive the full reward of His shed blood (Rev. 5:9).

  • Pingback: My top 5 posts from the last 30 days