No one called anyone a traitor

by Norm Miller

Reacting to a comment I made on the blog, SBCToday.com, the general editor of the Gospel Project Sunday school curriculum, Dr. Ed Stetzer, posted on April 10 the following on a blog funded by the Cooperative Program (which is supported by all Southern Baptists) and is sponsored and operated by Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary:

“Recently, I was accused of ‘treason’ in an online comment by an employee of a Cooperative Program-supported college in Georgia. My crime? I’m general editor of The Gospel Project, a curriculum that quotes Wesleyans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians. Apparently, in this person’s mind, quoting people from other denominations is sufficient evidence to deem one a traitor (according to Webster, a traitor is ‘one who commits treason’).”

Here is the pertinent portion of the comment to which Dr. Stetzer replied:

“To allow those outside of our denomination and who hold doctrinal positions diametrically opposed to our doctrinal positions to then comment to us about theology and doctrine through a teaching curriculum is … not the sort of behavior that pleases me in a Southern Baptist leader (Stetzer). Such behavior is not Southern Baptist statesmanship; it is treason….”

Rather than follow the example of a certain seminary president — who is on the national CP dole, and who ignores calls for him to explain why he leveled, however veiled or qualified, the egregious charge of semi-Pelagianism at his peers and hundreds of other Southern Baptists, who he also insinuated were ignorant — I will answer Dr. Stetzer.

For the record, three initial points:

1. I wish to thank Dr. Stetzer for every God-honoring effort he has made for the sake of the Gospel. His emphasis on church planting particularly God has used, I am sure, to sweep untold numbers of souls into the Kingdom.

2. The same dictionary that Editor Stetzer cites defines treason as the betrayal of a trust. So, in an effort to keep the editor on point, he was not accused of being a traitor. He chose that designation, not me. However, after talking with numerous sources, many of whom have rejected and returned the curriculum Stetzer edits, they say they have been betrayed and certainly no longer trust the curriculum in question. That was and is my intended context.

3. Stetzer’s citation of “a Cooperative Program-supported college in Georgia” puts all three Georgia Baptist colleges in his sights. Better to use a rifle, figuratively, and not a shotgun, I believe. Further, if Stetzer takes issue with a Baptist college that is supported by Georgia Baptists’ Cooperative Program, then let him take up that issue with Georgia Baptists rather than implying that any CP fund-receiving entity in Georgia is somehow, at least, financially accountable to Southern Baptists nationwide. This is an important distinction to be made. And the editor’s apparent oversight of needed distinctions is seemingly habitual in that the curriculum he edits fails to cite the denominational affiliations of just who is commenting in said curriculum. More on that momentarily.

I do thank the editor for allowing Dr. Adam Harwood — an author, a signatory of the Traditional Statement, and a professor at our college — to write a lesson in an upcoming quarter of the curriculum. Additionally, I readily acknowledge and am thankful for the Southern Baptists who write for the curriculum. I do wish, however, that the balance of contributors to the curriculum proportionally reflected the doctrinal convictions of the SBC at-large, or at least in accordance with the (im)balance shown by a recent Lifeway survey undertaken by a division of LW that Stetzer oversees.

Curiously, the editor cites Dr. Paige Patterson’s commentary on Revelation and even titles his blog post: “Paige Patterson is not a Traitor.”

Indeed.

I want to thank the editor for this opportunity to express my deepest gratitude to Dr. Patterson, whose compassion, patience and consideration toward me in my sojourns at Criswell College and SEBTS have deeply and strongly informed my spiritual walk with the Lord and my biblical, theological convictions.

Whereas the editor cited Dr. Patterson in an attempt to equate in some manner the Revelation commentary with a Sunday school curriculum, he proved my point.

The editor noted that Dr. Patterson cited extra-denominational resources, who, in some cases, underscored Dr. Patterson’s positions. I would expect no less from the erudite Patterson as his commentary would have been rejected by his editors had he been slipshod in his research and citations.

How is it, then, okay for the editor to fail to appropriately cite the Anglicans, Wesleyans and Presbyterians who make marginal comments in the Gospel Project curriculum? If Dr. Stetzer compares (and appeals to) a properly documented commentary with the curriculum he edits, then should he not also hold the curriculum to the same standards as the commentary?

Had it not been for responsible churchmen who researched those quoted in the curriculum, we would not now know that the marginal commenters are not only outside of our Convention, but are those who do not agree with important Southern Baptist doctrines. Not until now have I seen any ownership of this fact by the editor, for the curriculum did not document the sources, but only quoted them and gave their names.

You see, the curriculum cites “Voices from Church History” and “Voices from the Church” but fails to cite those voices’ denominational pedigrees. It would therefore appear that the editor does not adhere to the same standards he applauds.

The editor also seems to imply that I have some aversion to learning from others — even those outside the SBC.

Hardly. I can, do, and have learned from negative examples as well as positive ones.

At both Criswell College and SEBTS, students were required to read extra-denominational resources so as to be aware of their theological positions and to learn how to both recognize their errors and refute them when necessary.

Inasmuch as Anglicans, Wesleyans and Presbyterians have made significant contributions to the theological world, I am certain they are incapable of speaking to all Southern Baptist doctrines in a manner that reflects the Baptist Faith and Message in toto. One wonders, therefore, why we must for discipleship instruction and commentary turn to those whose majority theological opinions and positions are, in many cases, diametrically opposed to the overwhelming majority views of Southern Baptists.

Candidly, Anglicans, Wesleyans and Presbyterians should be the object of Southern Baptist instruction and not vice versa. We have far more to tell them than they, us.

Further, if all Southern Baptists were aware that “Voices from the Church” and “Voices from Church History” were advocates for the baptism of babies, the insecurity of the believer, and a works salvation, then those same Baptists would be as incensed as I am about a purportedly Southern Baptist curriculum quoting such people without proper documentation.

What are our people in the pew to think regarding the theological heritage and denominational affiliation of “Voices from the Church” and “Voices from Church History” if they are not appropriately cited? I posit that, Southern Baptists sitting in a Southern Baptist Sunday school classroom and reading from a curriculum written and printed by a Southern Baptist publishing house will naturally think that such “Voices” are Southern Baptists’. Thus the need for the editor to employ in the curriculum the same standards he applauds in a commentary.

At the very least, I would expect an editor — whose salary is paid from the products sold to Southern Baptists — to exhibit the editorial integrity of letting Southern Baptists know that their money spent on an ostensibly Southern Baptist curriculum also cites Anglicans, Wesleyans, Presbyterians or any other person whose theology may disagree to any extent with Southern Baptist doctrine. If the editor fails to cite the denominational associations of those who are not Southern Baptists, then at the very least the editor has failed his readers, and at most seriously damaged his trustworthiness (thus the treason word), as well as given an air of ecumenism.

A note about ecumenism: Whereas I and many other Southern Baptists would gladly join a Roman Catholic Church sponsored right-to-life rally, we would not turn to a local RCC priest for advice on any other theological point.

This all could be cleared up very easily if the editor would relate why these extra-denominational resources have not been identified. If such were a simple oversight, then I would expect Dr. Stetzer to say so, and then to fix the curriculum. However, as the matter stands now, we are left to wonder whether the oversight is one of editorial negligence or subterfuge, or somewhere in-between. As noted, too many have said they can no longer trust that curriculum. And since Webster defines treason as a breach of trust, then the shoe currently fits.

Of course, next would come our request for an explanation as to why there is an overwhelming imbalance of writers for that curriculum who espouse Calvinistic theology.

I remember when the Baptist Book Store opted to change its name to Lifeway Christian Resources. In the ensuing discussion on the matter, Southern Baptists were repeatedly assured that the change would not affect our Southern Baptist identity. As long as the Gospel Project curriculum fails to identify these extra-denominational “Voices,” that assurance will remain unbreached and the impression, unadulterated.

by Norm Miller

Norm Miller is the director of communications and marketing at Truett-McConnell College.

============

Post Script

Some of my friends have suggested that the word treason was too strong. Perhaps so. However, given the word’s definition (breach of trust), it is not applied inappropriately. However, I must ask if I would want to be called treasonous even if it were true.

So, Dr. Stetzer, please accept my apology for using the term treason to describe what I think is still representative of, at the very least, a perception problem with the curriculum you edit. I opened with thanks to you for your Kingdom efforts, and I close with a sincere apology. I was not intentionally or personally malicious in my choice of word (treason), but am being intentionally humble before you and am asking for your forgiveness.

Thank you, also, Dr. Stetzer, for the email you sent to me late last night, and most especially for apologizing for the vitriol directed toward me and our college that appeared in the blogosphere. Additionally, I understand you apologized to me on a blog for the unkind comments aimed at me from others, and even chided those who made them. Thank you for that, too. You have demonstrated genuine statesmanship in those regards.

A few words about other blogs: I don’t read them. I don’t have the time. I never would have known of Dr. Stetzer’s post unless someone had not sent me a link.

Friends tell me that a blog associated with SEBTS and another moderated by an SBC veep allowed (and in some cases, moderated after the fact) some of the unkind comments about me and our college. Some even questioned my salvation. Truly, such carping doesn’t really bother me that much. I am far more concerned for those whose mouths would betray their hearts in such a manner.

NOTE:  Comments on this post will open at 8:00 a.m., Friday, April 12, 2013.