Grahamline

Sonship "theology"

Thank you so much for your email. I would like to work with you in improving the article. I'm sorry that you didn't think it was balanced. The thing is, I was relying on the sources I could find. I guess one of the main rules in Wikipedia is to follow the sources. I'm sorry if I was misrepresenting Sproul, etc., but the fact remains that a lot of people who have written about Sonship Theology have focused on, or at least mentioned, criticisms of the ideas and/or the movement. I'm not particular about the name, but the article needs to be about the theology/movement, and not the course - "Sonship teaching" might be an alternative. In any case, we need third party sources - we should be able to find sources that explain the relationship between Serge and sonship teaching. As far as I can tell, it would be a mistake to equate the two - the New Life churches also followed the Sonship teaching. Finally, I don't know what you meant by saying Trumper is "more positive that you present him to be" - the article only lists him under "further reading". StAnselm (talk) 03:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

StAnselm,

Thanks for responding and your willingness to work with me on improving the article.

Perhaps we should think about an approach together about how to proceed. I've been researching this material for so long and have written several unpublished essays on the matter as part of my PhD research.

These are unpublished because they are intended to be a part of my dissertation which will be a biography of Jack Miller.

I have quite a bit of research, and have read every critique there is. Also, I have probably digitized half of Jack Miller's archival work.

However, before that, I'm scheduled to take written/oral comps at the end of November and first of December.

So as we think about an approach, depending on how in depth you'd like to be, if it is okay with you I'd like to get comps behind me.

Likely the sources you could find on "sonship theology" were unbalanced, intended to be critical. If you will provide me with your email, I can send you the link to Sproul's article, and an article by Gary North.

Pratt and Trumper are really balanced in their critique of "sonship theology", and do as good a job as any, though I've challenged both on the uncritical acceptance of the label "sonship theology" due to its origins with Van Dixhoorn and Adams.

Pratt's basic thesis is that Sonship fills an "affective theology" gap in modern Reformed theology which tends to focus on moral and cognitive theology. So he argues that Sonship meeting this affective deficit, and welcomes other options.

As best I can tell from my research, probably the best descriptor is "Sonship Movement."

The Sonship Movement has had such a profound impact on so many, I think attempts to explain the dynamics of this movement led to the creation of the label "Sonship theology" because so many people in our smaller PCA circles were attempting to understand it.

The Sonship course is what gave birth to the Sonship movement, and it caught Jack Miller, New Life and World Harvest/Serge somewhat by surprise.

New Life Church Planting Network and World Harvest Mission/Serge probably should not be distanced from the Sonship Course, especially when you study the evolution of each of these are related.

New Life Church Planting Network/Leadership focused on North America while World Harvest Mission was created to deal with international missions using the same material/leadership training methodology.

In Miller's archives, I found a 1993 World Harvest Mission annual report that explicitly discusses how the Sonship Course/Leadership Training Methodology was having such an unexpected dynamic impact on so many people from North America and around the world that they themselves were surprised and they begin to using language of movement.

Finally, what I meant with my reference to Trumper is with respect to his thesis in "When History Teaches us Nothing" which attributes the recovery of adoption to Jack Miller/World Harvest. He is critical of all the critics who have argued against "sonship theology" as missing the point.

Trumper's main point is that through history adoption tends to be neglected, and the Sonship is misusing adoption, but has helpfully recovered it. Trumper uncritically accepts the label "sonship theology" and he helpfully points out some errors in the Sonship material that World Harvest corrected.

Trumper is the best critic out there to date. He spent a good bit of time researching first hand information from World Harvest. My critique of Trumper is that he disconnects Sonship from its missiological roots.

But all of this research has been done after the death of Jack Miller. And no one to date, other than Miller's daughter Barbara, has researched his archives other than myself, which is my primary research objective.

For example, following Trumper's thesis about the recovery of adoption, I spent significant time investigating Miller's archives looking for when he began emphasizing adoption.

In a conversation with Paul Miller (Jack Miller's son, who was the first organizer of the original Sonship course), I asked him about this emphasis on adoption, and he said they essentially stumbled upon it, and it had such a profound impact in leadership training that it became the organizing theme of the course.

Because of the way the material is presented, I began searching for the connection between justification, adoption and sanctification.

In my most recent research, however, I found an unexpected surprise. I found the original leadership training lectures Jack Miller gave that would become the back bone of the Sonship Course. The entire leadership training course was on prayer, especially corporate prayer which climaxed with "A Son Meets with His Father."

What I discovered was that the organization of the Sonship course which seemed to systematically emphasize adoption between justification and sanctification was more accidental than intentional.

Jack Miller's emphasis on adoption was its more direct relation to and emphasis upon prayer.

When I began querying some of the early organizers of Sonship, they confirmed both Jack Miller's deep commitment to prayer, especially corporate prayer, and its relationship to adoption.

When I asked why his theology of prayer (claiming the promises) and his practice of "radical corporate prayer and team building" was left out of the Sonship course and only the last part was included, they response I received was that "they put together 16 of Miller's lectures in the leadership training material and couldn't include it all.

This is just some of the work I've been doing.

To lay my bias on the table and in the interest of full disclosure so we can work well together:

I am decidedly positive toward Sonship, but not uncritically. I've been through Sonship Ireland, Sonship North America, and taught Sonship in the United States, and various parts of India. And I've read every positive and negative thing I've found on the subject.

I am graduate of Covenant Seminary in St. Louis, MO, a PCA pastor for 14 years in Mount Juliet, TN, and a current PhD student at Southeastern Baptist in Wake Forest, NC.

I'm committed to being academically balanced and committed to, as best I can, present both the positive and negatives.

In Christ, Mike GrahamGrahamline (talk) 04:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. When you finish your PhD, I'd be very happy to add your findings to the article. I think the consensus on Wikipedia is that Masters' theses are not appropriate for citations, but doctoral theses are. You shouldn't add it yourself, of course (per WP:COI), but I'd be happy to do so on your behalf. As a recognised expert, your opinions/conclusions would also be appropriate for the article. Thanks for the heads up on Pratt's "affective gap" - that should be added to the article now, and I will do so in the next few days. As to the title, we would normally follow the most commonly used name, per WP:COMMONNAME, unless it was really biased - like, I suppose, "Sonship heresy". So unless your thesis can generate a sea-change in favour of "Sonship Movement", I'd be inclined to stick with "Sonship theology" as the name found in the majority of reliable sources. StAnselm (talk) 06:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've not edited/contributed on Wiki, so this is helpful. Also, I sort of look to Wiki both informative and as a reference for further research.

I have a essay from Gary North's bulletin, an article from RC Sproul, Jr., and a Briarwood Pastoral Position Paper from the session of Briarwood Church on Sonship that is very thoroughly researched and presented. I would like to share them with you as source material. How can I do that?

Regarding "Sonship movement", I think it is as attested in these sources as "Sonship theology" so I think you have some flexibility there, and you use "movement language" in your current review.

For instance, using the language of "movement", this was the primary critique/warning of Sproul, Jr. He was extremely positive about Sonship and warned about the danger all "movements" can have.

Gary North's essay is about-face on his previous unbalanced view of Sonship. He says,

Italic textFebruary, 2000

Dear ICE Subscriber: I want to recommend a ministry to you. It has helped me more than I can say in this brief letter. It's called World Harvest Mission. Specifically, it's a videotape program called SONSHIP. It was developed by Rev. C. John "Jack" Miller, who died in 1996. I wish I had found out about SONSHIP a decade ago. For more information, click here: http://www.whm.org/son.htmItalic text

And then he goes on to elaborate in a fairly lengthy article on the positive contribution of Sonship's Leadership Training Program.

Also, it seems appropriate to include Jack Miller's own quote about Sonship which I cited earlier, and at least, some nod to his published works. Jack Miller was a professor of practical theology at Westminster and "THE" expert on this topic..

It does seem fair-minded that there would be a link to both Serge (e.g., formerly WHM) and possibly New Life Glenside since that provide point of contact for people desiring to do further research -- both negative and positive.Grahamline (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Post 3--grahamline:

I looked at your edits. It still seems to me you are tending to be negative and not balanced. Is this intended?

Though I've not earned my PhD, I've read enough in academic critiques to be skeptical of academic assaults and the danger of unacknowledged bias' (e.g., Polanyi).

That was the reason I briefly described to you my history with WHM/Sonship so you could feel safe that with me that I was interested in both good and bad, so my positive bent could be relativized by wise voices, not intentionally or disingenuous voices.

Would you please indicate your bias? That will help us work together if we are to continue.

For instance, you note that Sproul rejects these criticisms clearly but you seem to hide it in the footnote. Why would you not be state this in main body just after you cite Sproul's acknowledgment of negatives as if they are true? His rejection of those criticisms is the basis for his position, and are far more in keeping with Sproul's overall positive review.

Secondly, you picked up a reference from Chad Van Dixhoorn which is good, but they are asserted as uncontested. Tim Trumper clearly unravels Van Dixhoorn's critiques (as well others before him) so that they are no longer considered academically viable critiques.

Part of the story arch of Sonship is that even critiques, when they have taken time to listen and ask questions have reversed their positions.

Grahamline (talk) 12:00, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I would be interested in reading the articles I mentioned, but if I give you my email address it would reveal my real-life identity. Are none of them available online? Again, I am sorry you think I am being negative. I have endeavoured to incorporate some of Van Dixhoorn's positive comments. But neutrality in Wikipedia does not mean giving the positives and the negatives equal time - it means reflecting the thrust and balance of the published sources. Most third party sources that discuss Sonship are rather critical. Anyway, I have not got a copy of Trumper's book. I'm a bit dubious about your claim that "Van Dixhoorn's critiques ... are no longer considered academically viable critiques". Considered by whom? There don't seem to be a lot of academics writing on this topic. StAnselm (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for taking so long in getting back to you. My comps were completed in December, and now I am working on my prospectus for Miller's biography as seen through an applied missiological perspective.

I'm also appreciative that you have provided additional edits that seem more balanced.

I'm not certain why providing an email address (or revealing your real identify) is problematic. It would seem welcome. Be that as it may. In any case, I will try to figure out a way to post these articles so they can be accessible online to you.

We can both agree that neutrality does not mean equal time between positive and negative.

You are correct in recognizing that most earlier published sources have been negative. That is not without reason, and also does not indicate unbiased treatment. Before citing Van Dixhoorn or referencing Adams, it would seem almost necessary to have read Trumper's "When History Teaches Us Nothing."

If you'd like, I can send my copy of Trumper's "When History Teaches Us Nothing" or help you get access to it. But I don't think you will do yourself or Wiki's readers justice by citing only negative sources, especially since they have been dismissed.

To understand Sonship/Miller, and these negative assessments, you'd also need to have some familiarity with happenings among Westminster Seminary faculty and students during the 70's-90's.

According to Rose Marie Miller (see "From Fear to Freedom"), Jack's wife, his thinking on sonship and adoption was largely forged in discussions/conflicts of justification and sanctification surrounding the Norm Shepherd theological conflict at Westminster.

Ironically, the papers by virtually all the Westminster faculty during that time are actually located in the Jack Miller archives. Jack kept an impeccably organized file of the theological treatments of this confllict.

I've perused the files, but after reading Rose Marie's comments, I will pay more attention when I'm in St. Louis this winter since Jack Miller seems to zero in on adoption during this theologically formative time.

Trumper basically dismisses previous lop-sided critics of Sonship, especially Van Dixhoorn. If you read his treatment in "When History Teaches Us Nothing", my guess is you would necessarily devalue these previous critics as well.

According to Trumper, the one who has had the most balanced criticism is a pastor in Savannah, GA named Terry Johnson (http://www.ipcsav.org/article/sonship-an-adequate-psychology-of-christian-experience/).

Under pressure surrounding adoption, Sonship/WHM wanted to focus on missions and avoid these theological conflicts. Consequently, they tried to gravitate away from adoption as their central theme toward the language of "sanctification by faith." That was a mistake on their part, and thankfully Beisner, chronologically following Trumper, was helpful and balanced.

In an essay for one of my seminars, I directly critiqued Sonship/WHM and shared my research with their leadership. In that essay, I interacted and agreed with Beisner's general assessment about "sanctification by faith."

However, Beisner makes the same error most other critics of Sonship have made.

Sonship is not a theology. Sonship, as Jack Miller himself clearly states, is basically a missional leadership training program.

Again, here is the basis for Sonship in Miller's own words:

Italic text"Working smart begins when a pastor like this one sees that if you invest more time at the beginning of an undertaking you may be able to save loads of it later. For example, a few years ago I was being overwhelmed by requests from men in our church who wanted either counseling, fellowship, or leadership training. Since it was clearly not possible for me to meet with each one separately, I began to form them into small groups, ranging in size from six to twelve. My wife Rose Marie did the same with women in our church.

This approach has been a great time saver. Eventually my teaching and Rose Marie’s teaching women began to merge. Some of the leaders who had been fully exposed to our small group instruction selected some of my letters, pamphlets, materials on meditation and lectures on sonship and organized them into a leadership training course known as “Sonship.” Today this program is managed entirely by others and now includes other teachers and counselors. It has multiplied leaders for our church and mission and other pastors have adapted the program to their churches."Italic text (Jack Miller, Learning About Limits: God Rebuilds A Man And His Ministry, 1989, unpublished, Jack Miller Archives, PCA Historical Center, Covenant Seminary, St. Louis, MO)

I challenged leadership of Serge/WHM to turn from shifting focus to "sanctification by faith" (e.g., it would only create additional controversies), to retain adoption as their central theme, and learn/apply from academic scholarship on adoption/union with Christ that has largely been generated by their missional recovery of adoption.

This essay was well received by Serge/WHM.

Which brings me to a couple final points.

Though I do not question that neutrality does not necessarily mean equal time between positives and negatives, I do question your assertion that neutrality allows room for only including so-called "unbiased" third party sources without respect to first party/primary sources.

First, as you know, there is no such thing as someone who is unbiased, including academic scholars. When I read other Wiki articles, or academic articles, they do not dismiss the primary sources.

Secondly, You simply cannot direct people away from Serge/WHM for information about Sonship and call that neutral or unbiased. To understand Sonship, you have to include primary sources including Miller's published books, the Sonship course itself, WHM/Serge, etc.

It is folly to discuss Sonship without citing Sonship directly.

Thirdly, I think it would in keeping with his intention to take R.C. Sproul's Jrs. statement of rejection of criticisms out of your footnote and place them in the body of your text since it is more in keeping with the intent of Sproul to be positive of Sonship.

Finally, I think reference to Pratt's positive contribution on Sonship's treating the affections in Reformed theology should also be recognized.

In Christ, Mike Graham174.49.34.176 (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)