~INTRODUCTION~
This article on Systematic Theology (1,264 pages; not currently available at http://www.sovereigngracestore.com/) and Bible Doctrine (528 pages; currently available at http://www.sovereigngracestore.com/) is an expansion and revision of a post I authored here on SGM Refuge a few months ago, now with quite a few changes:
(1) I’ve attempted to remove as much sarcasm, personal jabs and inflammatory language as possible, without weakening the primary concerns I and many others have in examining the subject and discovering the critical issues surrounding it.
(2) I have also tried to do some mop-up (editing) to make it a unified, coherent statement. That being said, I am open to anyone pointing out items or sections that need to be corrected, be it spelling, grammar, references, redundancies, inflammatory language you may see remaining in it, etc. Whatever the concern, email me at pk@sgmrefuge.com … Let’s not miss an opportunity to glorify God!
(3) Many sections of newer material and information have been added after doing more research in comparing Systematic Theology and Bible Doctrine.
(5) My final goal in changing this material is to make it available for members of the flock and leadership to use as a more formal structure for discussion on the topic. I would especially ask that you use it as a document of direct inquiry when asking the civil but tough questions about SGM in order to seek answers, graciously express concern and seek reform within SGM.
These changes were not made grudgingly. I sincerely desire reform within SGM, and do ask forgiveness for any sinful behavior on my part in which this issue was addressed or presented in the past by me.
~~~
WHY WAS SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY SLIMMED DOWN INTO BIBLE DOCTRINE, AND WHAT WERE THE RESULTS?
by Protestant Knight
Wayne Grudem’s works have been a staple in our Sovereign Grace Ministries’ (SGM) affiliated churches for over a decade now. I was personally curious as to why such a great volume like Systematic Theology needed to be condensed through abridgement and editing into the smaller Bible Doctrine. Even Grudem himself has humbly acknowledged that the original Systematic Theology was a breakthrough in terms of readability and comprehension, and a success in regard to adding a powerful weapon into the Christian soldier’s arsenal:
In the five years since Systematic Theology was published, the two most frequent comments I have heard are, “Thank you for writing a theology book that I can understand,” and “This book is helping my Christian life.” I thank God that he has allowed it to be useful to people in these ways. We have attempted to preserve these two characteristics -clarity and application to life- in this shorter book [Bible Doctrine]. (Grudem, Bible Doctrine, 11)
I read Bible Doctrine’s entire preface and reviewed it several times, to make sure I was clear regarding Grudem’s reasons why Bible Doctrine was even published. I think it’s important to note the factors and guidelines that were involved.
Grudem states clearly at the beginning:
This book is a condensed version of my 1,264-page Systematic Theology. It is intended for students in one-semester classes in Christian Doctrine, but I hope it will also prove useful for adult Sunday school classes and home Bible studies in which Christians want to work through a readable and biblically based survey of Christian doctrine. (Grudem, Bible Doctrine, 11; emphasis mine)
It should be noted that this volume, Bible Doctrine, is actively promoted by and available through SGM.
This is curious, as my understanding was that (1) the SGM Pastor’s College (PC) uses Systematic Theology, and (2) this is not for ”one semester,” but studies from it stretch throughout the entire length of time PC takes place. If this is not true or has changed, I would appreciate updated information on this matter (no sarcasm on my part; please feel free to email me at protestantknight_at_gmail_dot_com).
If Bible Doctrine was also tailored for “adult Sunday school classes,” I would appreciate it if anyone could provide me information on (1) any “adult Sunday school classes” available within SGM churches and if (2) they are or have ever been taught using Bible Doctrine as both source material and textbook. I would also appreciate any information on whether or not Bible Doctrine is the source material and/or a textbook for any “home Bible studies” within SGM.
I know that an obvious response to my above inquiries could be, “It wasn’t written just for SGM.” That’s not my point. My point is questioning why this volume is actively promoted and carried by SGM when it seems to have been designed for purposes that are not visibly present or are in fact absent within SGM.
If by “home Bible studies” Grudem meant individuals studying, then concerns can now be raised about Bible Doctrine itself and the apparent omissions as a result of the editing involved. This is particularly critical in regard to individuals within SGM doing solo Bible studies with this volume for reasons that will be made clear by the end of this article.
So did Wayne Grudem do the bulk of the condensing and editing to create Bible Doctrine? No. Grudem tells us who did:
Jeff Purswell… did the hard work of cutting 740 pages from my Systematic Theology. He consulted regularly with me, and we agreed to eliminate whole sections that were more relevant for seminary students (chapters on church government and church discipline, for example, and most of the detailed footnotes that dealt with fine points of interpretation of scripture verses)… he also eliminated the bibliographies and (with regret) the hymn at the end of each chapter… he added a glossary of special terms and review questions for each chapter. (Grudem, Bible Doctrine, 11)
Our SGM Store website’s ad copy confirms the editing credit as it gives this description of Bible Doctrine:
Here is Dr. Grudem’s monumental yet accessible Systematic Theology, masterfully reduced some 800 pages by Jeff Purswell, who serves as the Academic Dean of the Sovereign Grace Ministries Pastors College. A must-own volume for everyone with sincere interest in Christian doctrine.
Back to the preface in Bible Doctrine, Grudem goes on to say he felt Purswell did a “wonderful job” condensing Systematic Theology. From my own perspective, the material that was carried over from Systematic Theology (ST) into Bible Doctrine (BD), does seem to be an adequate enough abridgement in consideration of the factors Grudem described. The real question is what was not carried over from ST into BD.
Let’s be very clear at this point. This discussion and examination of ST and BD is not a crusade against Jeff Purswell. The fact that he is the Dean of Pastor’s College (since 1998) at SGM does, however play a role in questions raised upon examining what seems to me the obvious incompleteness of BD (copyrighted 1999).
Based on Grudem’s description in BD’s preface, we can form a quick outline of at least five items that are missing in BD with a general description by me of what each is and its application in ST:
(1) Church Government – also referred to as polity, Grudem’s defining questions at the beginning of ST’s “Chapter 47: Church Government” (pp. 904-949) are helpful to get an overview of the sub-categories under Grudem’s view of polity. Grudem also notes in ST that “biblical church government” is one of the factors that can make a church “more pure” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 874). SGM is not excluded from that all-inclusive word, “church.”
(2) Church Discipline - (ST, pp. 894-900) This is an elaboration on how the church exercises Matthew 18:15-20, along with supporting verses describing the diverse types of sins warranting discipline, including (but not limited to) those described in Romans 16:17, Titus 3:10, 1 Corinthians 5:1, 2 Thessalonians 3:14-15, 1 Timothy 1:20, and 2 John 10-11. The pattern seems to be that the sins are public in nature and are continued over a period of time. Grudem also notes the “right use of church discipline” is another “sign of a more pure church” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 874). Once again, SGM is not excluded from that all-inclusive word, “church.”
(3) Detailed footnotes that dealt with fine points of interpretation of scripture verses -These are goldmines in illuminating Dr. Grudem’s methodology in interpreting scripture.
(4) Bibliographies at the end of each chapter - While BD has an “Appendix 3: Annotated Bibliography of Evangelical Systematic Theologies” (pp. 496-504), it is not the comprehensive end-of-chapter lists found in ST.
(5) Hymns at the end of each chapter -It appears Dr. Grudem was careful to select hymns he thought best reflected the subject matter and themes of each chapter within ST. I can see where this would be of special appeal to worship leaders, poets and other artisans God has mercifully sprinkled throughout his church.
So the above five missing pieces from ST are based on Grudem’s own description; but there is a lot packed behind those five, as particularly the first two (Church Government and Church Discipline with their sub-categories) come up as talking points time and again via the testimonies on these blogs.
To illustrate this further, it’s important to examine the Table of Contents from ST and BD regarding the differences on what is contained in Part 6: The Doctrine of the Church (both volumes list this as Part 6). This may seem like a tedious and repetitive task, but these differences are important. Here’s how it reads in ST, if you were to cross out (cross out) sections or topics that are already in BD:
Part 6: THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
Chapter 44 (p. 853): The Church: Its Nature, Its Marks, and Its Purposes… What is necessary to make a church? How can we recognize a true church? The purposes of the church.
Chapter 45 (p. 873): The Purity and Unity of the Church… What makes a church more or less pleasing to God? What kinds of churches should we cooperate with or join?
Chapter 46 (p. 887): The Power of the Church… What kind of authority does the church have? How should church discipline function?
Chapter 47 (p. 904): Church Government… How should a church be governed? How should church officers be chosen? Should women serve as pastors of churches?
Chapter 48 (p. 950): Means of Grace Within the Church… What are the different activities within the life of the church that God uses to bring blessing to us? What do we miss if we neglect involvement in a local church?
Chapter 49 (p. 966): Baptism… Who should be baptized? How should it be done? What does it mean?
Chapter 50 (p. 988): The Lord’s Supper… What is the meaning of the Lord’s Supper? How should it be observed?
Chapter 51 (p. 1003): Worship… How can our worship fulfill its great purpose in the new Testament age? What does it mean to worship “in spirit and in truth”?
Chapter 52 (p. 1016): Gifts of the Holy Spirit (1): General Questions… What are spiritual gifts? How many are there? Have some gifts ceased? Seeking and using spiritual gifts.
Chapter 53 (p. 1049): Gifts of the Holy Spirit (2): Specific Gifts… How should we understand and use specific spiritual gifts? (Grudem, Systematic Theology, Contents; cross-referenced with Grudem, Bible Doctrine, Contents)
Let me restate: What is not crossed out above is what is not covered in Bible Doctrine. To simplify this, here is a clear list of topics (in bold) and sub-topics (italics, listed as questions) that an individual will miss when studying BD:
[The Church]: Its Marks, and Its Purposes… What is necessary to make a church?
The Purity and Unity of the Church… What kinds of churches should we cooperate with or join?
The Power of the Church… What kind of authority does the church have? How should church discipline function?
Church Government… How should a church be governed? How should church officers be chosen? Should women serve as pastors of churches?
Means of Grace Within the Church… What are the different activities within the life of the church that God uses to bring blessing to us? What do we miss if we neglect involvement in a local church?
Worship… How can our worship fulfill its great purpose in the new Testament age? What does it mean to worship “in spirit and in truth”?
I believe it is an understatement to say that compelling questions should be asked about the above ”missing” sections in Bible Doctrine. As was previously pointed out, these topics -now going beyond just church government [polity] and church discipline- tend to be flashpoints for testimonials in regard to negative experiences with SGM.
To see how this works out in regard to comparing exact portions of text from each book can be seen in regard to how each one lists signs of a more-pure church. The following is from ST, with overlap/duplication from BD crossed out:
C. Signs of a More-Pure Church
Factors that make a church “more pure” include:
1. Biblical doctrine (or right preaching of the Word)
2. Proper use of the sacraments (or ordinances)
3. Right use of church discipline
4. Genuine worship
5. Effective prayer
6. Effective witness
7. Effective fellowship
8. Biblical church government
9. Spiritual power in ministry
10. Personal holiness of life among members
11. Care for the poor
12. Love for Christ
(Grudem, Systematic Theology, 874; cross-referenced with Grudem, Bible Doctrine, 371-372)
Once again, what is not crossed out above is what is not in the BD text. Key issues such as effective fellowship, biblical church government and spiritual power in ministry are missing in one’s study of BD. Of particular curiosity is the fact that right use of church discipline is included in this list in BD, when BD has no section or chapter whatsoever that deals with this subject in any detail for one to know exactly what the “right use of church discipline” is.
The above examples are taken from just one cross-referenced section found in both ST and BD.
I return to my original question and observations stated at the outset of this article: Why is this volume (Bible Doctrine) actively promoted and carried by SGM when it seems to have been designed for purposes that are not visibly present or are in fact absent within SGM (”students in one semester classes of Christian doctrine,” “adult Sunday school classes,” and “home Bible studies”)? If by “home Bible studies” Grudem meant individuals studying, then concerns can now be raised about Bible Doctrine itself due to the apparent omissions that resulted from the editing involved.
For the person reading this who wonders why I seem to be arguing minutiae between theological volumes by the same author, my response is best given by Wayne Grudem himself:
Most churches will tend to think that the areas in which they are strong are the most important areas, and the areas where they are weak are less important. But the New Testament encourages us to work for the purity of the church in all of these areas. (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 875; emphasis mine)
Grudem’s statement is buttressed by the following scripture references:
Colossians 1:28; 3:16-17
1 Corinthians 4:20; 5:6-7, 12-13; 11:17-34; 14:12
Acts 1:8; 2:44-47; 4:32-35
Romans 1:16; 15:26
Galatians 2:10; 3:3-5
In closing, here is a sobering reminder -courtesy of Dr. Grudem- of what happens when a church as a whole does not strive for purity:
But we must realize that not all churches will respond well to influences that would bring them to greater purity. Sometimes, in spite of a few faithful Christians within a church, its dominant direction will be set by others who are determined to lead it on another course. Unless God graciously intervenes to bring reformation, some of these churches will become cults, and others will just die and close their doors. But more commonly these churches will simply drift into liberal Protestantism. (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 875; I could not find this statement in Bible Doctrine)
In Christ because of Christ, and always praying for God’s gracious intervention to bring reformation,
~John (Protestant Knight)
~~~
~BIBLIOGRAPHY~
Grudem, Wayne. Bible Doctrine: Essential Teachings of the Christian Faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1999.
Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Leicester, Great Britain: InterVarsity; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1994.
SGM Store’s ad copy for Bible Doctrine can be found at: http://www.sovereigngracestore.com/ProductInfo.aspx?productid=B3080-00-11
August 28th, 2008 at 11:28 am
PK,
I agree with your analysis. It seems extremely troubling to me that a church movement which prides itself on being the doctrine church would water down a text book on doctrine. Even if the purpose was to eliminate sections which were more relevant for students of theology, in order to create a still-accurate, yet more easily-consumed book, it seems an egregious error to take out sections as important as the very basis of church offices, church discipline, and detailed information on scripture. If we are to live the whole Bible, not just parts we like to understand, than this prevents us from doing so. Furthermore, if SGM feels it necessary to create a “Perspectives” piece on church government, who are they to tell us that it is unimportant for us to totally understand church government, just as long as we take it spoon-fed out of their hands.
On the topic of church discipline, I am inclined to say that in my rather-short two year stint in SGM, I have seen a few church discipline issues go wrong, horribly, horribly wrong. I witnessed first-hand what happened to my good friend exintern, as well as watched the “apostle” Jones remain enthroned through his son’s egregious behavior while in charge of the Florida youth. Perhaps if the flock of SGM understood what church discipline meant, maybe SGM would not so easily get away with this bad behavior. Unfortunately, I am inclined to comment that the information and thought control coming from the local pulpit, the regional managers’ offices and the head of state in all things SGM would prevent this ideal of popular uprising within to actually occur.
I am a book worm to begin with, so I find abridged versions to be reviling, disgusting, and thoroughly nauseating, so please excuse my spirited attack on abridging something so precious as Systematic Theology.
August 28th, 2008 at 11:57 am
my question is why did Grudem ALLOW another man to dictate what was to be the final product? My personal opinion, or at least how it APPEARS (which we are to avoid even the appearance of ungodliness!) is that Grudem, knowing they use his books at the PC, was all too willing to cooperate with the re-write because it would mean more book sales for him. All about the money. Why else would you compromise your work? It doesn’t sound like Grudem was enthusiastic about the revisions even, just grateful, in a sort of “I’ve just been manipulated but I don’t realize it, and I can’t figure out how or why I am feeling the way I am – disappointed but not wanting to make a fuss because it would make me seem prideful” – classic manipulation if oyu ask me.
My report card: Pursewell gets an “A” for his manipulation of Grudem, and an “F” for not being able to avoid the appearance of ungodliness….
August 28th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Mike:
Thanks, and those outstanding observations in regard to where this situates the flock (me and many, many other precious brothers and sisters in Christ) in an SGM church. I was trying to find a good segment of your post to re-paste and applaud here, but it’s all good and it’s a part 2 of sorts to my article. There was much more I wanted to say in that piece, but I think it’s important to get from folks what they got from Grudem, like yourself.
In regard to the horrid experience with church discipline you related toward the end of your post, this just cements my conviction that the flock must know top to bottom the details of Grudem’s ST take on this, as he soaks his theology with scripture. This can only be an inoculation (it may not be 100% bulletproof, but a very strong shield) of sorts against these sin-diseased, tragic events that destroy people… in many situations, as you confirmed, when church discipline is mishandled, it can be just as pernicious against those witnessing as it is for the one under discipline.
Great post, and thanks again.
…pk
August 28th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Hi Concerned:
I honestly don’t know Dr. Grudem’s motives, and far be it from me to try to paint him with total innocence. It is puzzling to me as well, as I don’t know the entire situation and reasons behind it. The closest I can come to is another segment from BD’s preface (p.11, by Dr. Grudem):
“In the five years since Systematic Theology was published, the two most frequent comments I have heard are , ‘Thank you for writing a theology book that I can understand,’ and ‘This book is helping my Christian life.’ I thank God that he has allowed it to be useful to people in these ways. We have attempted to preserve these two characteristics –clarity and application to life– in this shorter book… I have not written this book for other teachers of theology (though I hope many of them will read it). I have written it for students –and not only for students, but also for every Christian who has a hunger to know the central doctrines of the Bible in greater depth.”
This may not explain much to anyone, and I am sure I will be accused of assigning motives to Purswell, but the fact that the five extractions I related in my original post (especially the first three) are three very bruised areas of SGM cannot be discounted. Connect the dots. The dots are connected by leaders in their flock all of the time, motives are rapidly assigned, and yet when there is the slightest criticism or concern voiced by a sheep in SGM in regard to leadership, polity or discipline, the claws come out, the hissing starts, fangs appear, and and it directly entails weaknesses that are characterized by, at a mimum, 1-3 above.
Getting back to what you said, Concerned, my whole point was that such a dumbed-down edition was unnecessary, as the first was readable. If it was financial concerns, a paperback/newsprint edition of ST would have solved that, and so many churches, especially in third world countries, would be grateful for it. This may have already been done and I am simply not aware of it. If printings like this were indeed done, then this makes BD just that more unnecessary. I can’t discount your observation on financial motivation, and I can’t say I would do it any differently than Dr. Grudem, had an innocuously appearing proposition of creating a smaller edition of my work with potentially more income had been put in front of me (much like the scenario you described). Grudem and Purswell go back a ways into Purswell’s seminary days under Grudem, so who knows how personal history played into it.
I can’t tell you what the motives were, only what the evidence of the negligence regarding the extraction of the top 3 seems to exhibit.
…pk
August 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
PK,
Great article. You made it easy for simple folk like me to understand. Just the idea of reading Systemetic Theology makes me want to loose my reading glasses.
I agree with all your points, but especially one: church government. Though you didn’t go into great detail this time, I know your views from past posts. Plurality of Elders? Is that right? I believe that when the first elder-type people were elected, Peter told the church to choose those men. Didn’t the 12th Apostle (who replaced Judas) get elected by drawing lots? Could you ever see that happening in SGM? How is that for leaving it up to the Holy Spirit!
The Body of Christ should have a say in who is guiding them, because they know who amongst them is “filled with wisdom and the Holy Spirit”. Who draws them to Christ? Who serves them with true love and understanding? Who would lay down his life for the sheep? I think members of the Body are fully capable of answering those questions and prayerfully submitting their choice of who will best lead the flock. I feel strongly that “authority” in the church is over-emphasized almost to the point of superstition. This ought not to be.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Concerned,
I think what happened between Grudem and Purswell is pretty standard in academia. Grudem would have understood that Purswell was not changing Sys Theo, but creating his own version of it, for his own purpose, however wrong it was. I would call it classic manipulation if, for instance, the book was re-released as Sys Theo with all of the revisions as something an editor did to him. He probably just assumed it was for an intended purpose, and thought the added revenue would help bolster his own convictions. Also, by creating an abridged version, he is sort of enticing people who enjoy it to go get themselves a copy of the real deal so-to-speak.
PK,
I salute your convictions. I hope posts such as this illuminate peoples’ minds to the information control and backwards practices found in some aspects of SGM. It is my hope and prayer that people come to terms with these things before too many more lives are torn apart.
August 28th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
PK, thank you for your research and this article/post. We have danced around for months on both blogs about “why” and “how” and touched on the doctrinal problems and areas…I think you are on to something in that if the pastors at the PC are taught in a certain way, this does lay the foundation and set the stage for their further manipulation and control by the apostles and higher up leadership. IN turn, these pastors will have a foundation they can use to address and control the sheep in their care. It begins with mind control, where our minds come into agreement with the false teachings (or lack of teachings, as the case may be)
sometimes, false teaching also simply results from not teaching the WHOLE – which I think is what is fundamentally wrong with SGM doctrinal stances. It isn’t just what they teach, it is what they don’t emphasize vs what they do emphasize, and the combination of the two that produces crippled, fearful sheep in authoritarian churches.
excellent observations – thank you again!
August 28th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Mike said:
PK,
I salute your convictions. I hope posts such as this illuminate peoples’ minds to the information control and backwards practices found in some aspects of SGM. It is my hope and prayer that people come to terms with these things before too many more lives are torn apart.
Amen and Amen!!!! So be it, Lord Jesus!
August 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Concerned, you said:
Sometimes, false teaching also simply results from not teaching the WHOLE – which I think is what is fundamentally wrong with SGM doctrinal stances. It isn’t just what they teach, it is what they don’t emphasize vs what they do emphasize, and the combination of the two that produces crippled, fearful sheep in authoritarian churches.
Yes, yes – very insightful!
August 28th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
PK,
Brilliant post!
Thank you so much for honoring us by guest hosting here!
But, even more than that, I want to publicly thank you for your (true) humility, your obvious love and concern for SGM, and your equal love and concern for those who have been hurt by SGM’s errant practices. You have a very balanced view of the good things in SGM, but also the very wrong things in SGM… thank you for not turning a blind eye, and calling for reform within this church movement!
I continue to pray for you, and for many more like you!
August 28th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Anyway, yes, Canary. Me no have enough caffeine. Me Tarzan. Me PK. Me want plurality of elders. Me think Apostle Paul want same thing too.
That made me laugh! Thanks for making it simple!! I agree with Carole. Thank you for not turning a blind eye. Maybe there can be reform not only in SGM, but in other authoritarian churches, as well, through this blog and others. I hear it again, God saying with a passion, “Let My people go!”
August 28th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Canary: “I agree with all your points, but especially one: church government. Though you didn’t go into great detail this time, I know your views from past posts. Plurality of Elders? Is that right?”
Yes. A true plurality would reinforce and strengthen the hedge around church leadership. The so-called senior pastor-led “plurality” that dave Harvey describes in “Polity” (available as a free download on our SGM website, and interestingly enough Harvey tries to fend off critics from the starting gate by placing a rather generic quote by [drum roll] Dr. Grudem!) is completely alien, I believe to holy scripture. Plurality of elders, or a presbyterian form of government, of course, like anything fallen in this world, is not bulletproof, but I would be willing to bet (and R.C. Sproul would slap me on the hand, justifiably for betting) it is a far superior model to Harvey’s warmed over episcopalianism/authoritarianism trying to fly under the flock’s radar (sometimes succeeding, sometimes not).
Harvey’s general argument early on in ”Polity” is that a true plurality is unproductive, on the whole, and he characterizes it as being too dead or inoperable due to too many hands in the pie.
That observation is (a) a straw-man argument and (b) a steaming dogpile set outside the church office door designed to keep sheep fearful of questioning church government in Sovereign Grace Ministries.
Wow. Got off on a tangent.
Anyway, yes, Canary. Me no have enough caffeine. Me Tarzan. Me PK. Me want plurality of elders. Me think Apostle Paul want same thing too.
…pk
August 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Harvey’s general argument early on in ”Polity” is that a true plurality is unproductive, on the whole, and he characterizes it as being too dead or inoperable due to too many hands in the pie.
PK,
I’ve noticed that this happens when people are not living for the Lord but for themselves and their own agendas. The answer, as you are saying, isn’t to throw out plurality of Elders, but to teach people to do all things with the mind of Christ, and to serve the Body in His love. When you loose that, you loose the right to govern, I think. Extremists like SGM come in thinking they must control everything.
It is sort of like living in the USA. If we aren’t involved in electing who leads us, we will eventually loose our right to govern ourselves as extremists take over. Anyway, freedom, if not protected, will be lost. This can be said for our freedom in Christ, too.
August 28th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Thanks for your compliment and prayers, Carole, and it is my pleasure.
Reform must happen, or we as an organization will fall. I know some out there believe that should happen, and would even be happy to see it happen (these folks are rare, but they are out there), but I don’t. Every time it gets knocked down, I re-plant my flag. It’s hard to describe what I feel, I simply have to be obedient in God’s governance of my emotions and my battle with sin, and fall into the roads of His holiness and forgiveness that is paved by the blood of the Cross, and feel renewed strength in light of the Resurrection’s statement that death simply does not have final power over me, other saints, this world, this galaxy, this universe, this cosmos. YHWH does. He spoke it into existence, and for me to fall at the hands of critics and lemmings within and without SGM is simply a joke, by comparison. To whine about losing life or limb over the truth and protecting the flock is such small potatoes! When God tells me to move, I will… but it simply hasn’t happened yet.
That’s the long way of saying, here I stand… I can do no other. No, I’m no Martin Luther, but Martin is not the one I serve. I serve who Martin serves. Martin changed the world… I just want to protect my church from within and without.
…pk
August 28th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
PK,
What you are doing is very wonderful. Reform in the church as a whole would be magnificent. This authoritarian thing is so wide spread!
I will be praying for your situation. It has to be very tough at times. God’s love will keep you, I’m sure.
August 28th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Again, I have absolutely nothing of value to add to this discussion but I find it illuminating.
Thank you all, but especially PK, for articulating your thoughts so beautifully.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
PK–thanks so very much. Very illuminating.
Funny the way we live quite contentedly under a Presbyterian form of government in the United States, in a sense: we elect those in whom we have trust, who represent us in a plurality in Washington (well, ok, we could really open a can of worms right now over this…but just think in the most optimistic and pure sense of the thing).
Yet this form of SGM government is the opposite. Imagine, in the USA, if those who happened to be in charge because they were the first ones in the door simply chose others to put in charge over the rest of us–and we were without representation.
We’d call it tyranny.
I vote that we all work together and send PK to PC as a spy to figure out exactly what goes on up there.
Now THAT would be a blog.
August 28th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Oooooh, a spy…so James Bondish…Jim could be “M”. Hee-hee.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Mornin’:
My quote of the day here, involving #1 on my list in this post:
“Were the whole Christian world to revert back to the original model, how far more simple, uniform and beautiful would the church appear, and how far more agreeable to the ecclesiastical polity instituted by the holy apostles.”
-comment under “polity” in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:46 am
We used Bible Doctrine in our systheo class at Northwestern College in St. Paul and my professor remarked that the book was the product of Bible College and Seminaries requesting an abridged version of Systematic Theology. This same issue trimmed down Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology to an abridged Introducing Christian Doctrine.
Bible Doctrine is a good introduction because it is readable and relevant to a lot of issues evangelicals think about when the first get into systematic theology. But I would hope that evangelicals would abandon Grudem altogether and go with Erickson. Grudem is too polarizing in my opinion on things that are highly disputable (Calvinism-Arminianism, Womanhood, Spiritual Gifts, Hierarchal Trinity).
One final note, however, is that John Piper (Grudem’s close friend) uses Systematic Theology as a “statement of faith” of sorts… pretty different from SGM’s use of Bible Doctrine.
August 29th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
RK,
This is worth repeating:
“Were the whole Christian world to revert back to the original model, how far more simple, uniform and beautiful would the church appear, and how far more agreeable to the ecclesiastical polity instituted by the holy apostles.”
-comment under “polity” in Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language.
I long to see this happen. Simple, uniform, and beautiful. What a remarkable statement.
August 29th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
PK,
Your quote: “If Systematic Theology wasn’t short enough to teach at the PC, or if it was deemed necessary that we sheep needed a dumbed down version of a very readable book”
Systematic Theology was the first Theology book I read and it is a very easy read. I can’t imagine anyone needing a dumbed down version. I can’t imagine anyone in Pastor’s college not wanting the entire book so they could have it as a future reference. Also, this is one book where I really got alot out of the detailed footnotes and I wouldn’t want a copy with them removed. That is really weird to me.
August 30th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Butterfly:
Ditto… Copy… my thoughts exactly! I just can’t figure out the reason why the BD book was made to start with, Adam O.’s comment that his professor remarked that bible colleges and seminaries requested a dumbed down version makes some sense, as different denominations could fill in the polity, discpline, etc. gaps… but that’s not all that good, as we have determined here. Viewing different forms of polity, for example, could have a positive effect on a church that has been using a failing model. Grudem’s work could help show them the advantages and pitfalls in other forms. Godd comment Butterfly!
Reformed Teacher: “I vote that we all work together and send PK to PC as a spy to figure out exactly what goes on up there.”
LOL…
They’d figure out my identity inside of a week.
I know that in posts like this, people view it as a back-handed slap at the pastor’s college, when it really isn’t. I am so thankful we offer something for our guys, but (imho) it seems to be mysterious in its scope, and the little to no information about it on the SGM website… in many ways is troubling to me. Does anyone know of a blog/diary that a graduate has published that I am not aware of that details the PC experience?
Right now I am re-re-reading Dave Harvey’s booklet on SGM polity (with a small slice of Grudem’s overview on polity for comparison) and… wow. Wow… and egad… I need more caffeine.
…pk
August 30th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I don’t buy the defense that BD is a condensed version for educational reasons with the sections removed for the institutions’ own policy to be taught. This is contrary to the educational message you find in post-secondary institutions. The goal of any higher-education institution is challenging the students’ critical and analitical skill. This is one example of circumventing that skill through informational control, for which SGM is becoming infamous. I know I have experienced this and recieved teaching on not critically thinking from the pulpit. NO MIND CONTROL, THANK YOU!!
August 30th, 2008 at 10:46 am
I agree, Mike.
Let’s not forget that Grudem’s Systematic Theology is an introduction to systematic theology.
Do seminary/pc students really need an introduction to an introduction?
August 30th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Excellent post, Mike. So, based on appearances: at best, BD is generic with a questionable fill-in-the blanks scope, and at worst it’s a purposeful edition with gaping holes that are all too convenient for “SG Perspectives” to fill. That is some extremely shaky ground, in any part of that best-to-worst territory. I’ve tried my best not to assign motives to it (although my sarcasm does leak through), and it still comes up unsavory all the way around.
Jim: “Do seminary/pc students really need an introduction to an introduction?”
Ditto, Jim. An “introduction to an introduction,” if that’s what it is, is such an unnecessary, moronic and confusing redundancy; and I think I’ll also state for about the thousandth time in these comments that Church Government, Church Discipline and notes on Scripture Interpretation must be a part of the flock’s core reading.
…pk
August 30th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I have a high school student who is the son of an SGM pastor, PC graduate.
He told me once that he was considering going to PC, because it was easy and he’d only have to go to school for nine months instead of four years of college, and then he’d be able to work.
I love this kid, he really loves Jesus, really REALLY loves his church, but it was at the point of that conversation that the hair on the back of my head stood up in regards to SGM.
I asked a bunch of SGM kids if they thought nine months of PC was enough, and they thought it was great that their pastors got ‘done’ in only nine months, as opposed to my pastors, who have to slog through college and then 2-4 years of post grad study in some dreary seminary in St. Louis, or some other dreary place.
After I told them that their pastors certainly ‘did college’ first, they seemed doubtful, but did agree that most of the ones they knew had gone to college.
(Sad moment of realization that the future of pastors may involve hard work and intensive study. Bummer, dude.)
They didn’t know, when I asked them, if there was any study of Greek…they couldn’t figure out why that might be important. One of them assured me that they broke their course of study up into parts, and then spent two-four weeks on each topic.
I was very relieved to hear all this.
Wasn’t there some plot….back in the sixties….to control a populace by controlling their education, and not allowing them too much knowledge, or teaching them how to attain knowledge?
I think it is sad. So many people with passion for God, true love for him, but living a controlled, dumbed-down theological life.