Thanks so much for debunking this sketchy, Facebook-driven operation! As a dyed-in-the-wool Presbyterian whose tradition perennially out-punches its weight in terms of systematic theology and apologetics (B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, Cornelius Van Til, Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, etc.), I was still almost taken in by the *concept* that is quite valid in itself, that today’s kids and grandkids are not being grounded in the “whys” of what they’re taught in Sunday School class.
Most telling in your meticulously researched (even by Presbyterian standards!) was the video that showed a Sunday School Bible lesson booklet masquerading as a book on systematic theology. What’s troublesome to me is the provenance of even the “fine” material constituting that book. In the second of the two videos you shared, the topics could be read at the top of the page, but the body copy was of insufficient resolution to be made out or read. The question of copyright is the derivative nature of the material and appropriate credit or citation attributed to an actual, personal author. The first clue is the attribution of the authorship on the cover, “by Valorrea.” Big red flag there.
But perhaps more bewildering still is the question, who does this kind of thing? Who knows enough about the concerns of American Evangelical parents and grandparents to try to pull off this kind of caper? And besides the obvious profit motive, to what end? If this were some scammer in Romania, how could such a person convincingly pose as an American Christian grandma on Facebook—and why would they even want to?
Perhaps the argument being made by “Emily Carter,” whomever she may or may not be, could be presented to several forward-looking Christian publishers who might have the capacity to produce such a volume; Zondervan comes to mind; Cook Communications, Navpress, or The Gospel Coalition, perhaps in collaboration or cooperation with the Association of Christian Schools. (Many others I’m surely leaving out, including the Southern Baptist’s’ Holman Press, as well as the go-to Thomas Nelson). I would at least be somewhat concerned about denominational skew—you and I would apparently disagree on charismatic doctrine or dispensationalism, probably, but in many instances these distinctives do not negate or outweigh our core areas of agreement—and sometimes would be helpful simply to accurately list or run down the varying viewpoints, presenting them fairly, perhaps in footnotes. A lot of what we’re talking about is in contrast with a secular, atheist/agnostic perspective anyway.
I'm at the stage/age where I can't remember if I told someone something in conversation or wrote about it in a blog post, so I might be repeating myself, but in anything, if you don't know why you believe what you believe, you're susceptible. The whole point (or idea, at least) of school is not just to learn important things, but to know why they are necessary to know and why some fact or process can be relied on. We know what the thing is, how it came to be, and why it can still be relied upon. The secular world does this well; it's standard procedure.
The Christian world does not do this well, currently. We have slipped into a feelings/emotional mode, which pairs poorly with Sys Theo.
I would do poorly in the military because it is hard for me to obey without a clear understanding of why something works, is a good idea, or should be done. In my Christian walk, faith is a tremendous leap for that same reason. We have some people thinking they are walking in faith when what they are really walking in is ignorance. It takes great faith to pursue, attempt to understand, process, and live out full Christian theology. Now, I'm not saying that unless you have an advanced theological degree, you are not a valid Christian. The Holy Spirit helps us understand the Word. But we have people whose Bible reading is Instagram daily verses or chapter-a-day check-the-box kind of thing and they aren't *learning* what the Bible says. Does that make sense? They have faith and lay claim to something they don't even grasp, something they don't even know they should grasp.
I don't know how those Valorrea folks tapped into some kind of Christian zeitgeist (was it the death of Charlie Kirk and monitoring the response after, which was very much about how he tried to help young people understand why beliefs mattered? I don't know), but they got it exactly right, and people on Facebook and online really responded. I can't speak to motive beyond what I've seen in the fruit of their actions (all of which is noted in the two blog posts). A day after Charlie Kirk's death, I was bombarded with all kinds of T-shirt sellers selling outright TP ripoffs or things similar to what would be associated with Charlie. I don't think we can appreciate the profit motive quite enough, particularly if we're operating with a conscience that knows we answer to God. But combined with the response online, the explosion of Sys Theo books for kids on Amazon, and Valorrea's newest book, a Sys Theo book for adults, it's clear there's a significant number of people aware (or not sure, but afraid) that their kids and grandkids, and even themselves, do not know what they believe and why.
Yes, you and I would disagree on some theological things, and that is okay; we can still be neighbors in the New Earth. But as I noted elsewhere, and as I've said multiple times, most recently to friends in the midst of a church blowup, if you have a body of believers who are sitting in the pews and don't know what they actually believe and why it can be believed, and you have a variety of differing view points, you WILL have a problem at some point. People will fight, choose sides, leave, and it is all very much unnecessary most of the time if we didn't let it boil to that point.
As rough as it sounds...if you've built a big church on soft-pedaling teaching so that ten years in, you have hyper-Calvinists mixed with hyper-grace or full-on Arminians...you are going to have a church fight, and it's going to be ugly. Sure, they might all end up in Heaven someday, but what damage will they do to the body down here? It is much better to be upfront about the beliefs a particular body holds immediately and all the time, rather than not teaching them directly and bluntly in a clear context.
That is, you can say, with the idea and hope of attracting more people and building big numbers, "well, they'll learn as we go through our different sermon series," and think you can have a healthy church built on vague but helpful teaching, but I would say, "no, you need to do a sermon series on what we believe and why, because people don't always get what you're saying if it's too subtle." I mean, some denominations have such a broad, vague statement of beliefs that they are inevitably creating local churches destined to split. The internet is teaching their people things, and they're bringing them into the local body and it's a mess.
Much of this is the fruit of seeker-sensitive and emergent church approaches in which, in order not to offend, the less theology offered the better, and it was replaced with programs, good times, and whatever else. So we have a bunch of people attending church and claiming Christ without any idea of what the basic beliefs are. More than once, I've been in a Bible study, and someone has said something so off the mark ("Was Jesus a created being?" or something like that), and I wonder how in the world they have gotten this far without understanding basic Christian theology. How can they attend a church for ten years and not know? How do they not even know what the denomination or individual church body believes?
I know people like the idea of a Rodney King church where we all get along (yes!) but then assume that will occur when everyone has the lowest common denominator of beliefs out there. That works for a while until that uneasy sense of not knowing what we believe and why sets in, and we go searching. (Or, frankly, when a person with domineering and control issues takes root in the church and decimates it over time.)
That perfect huge body of unified believers is not how it is on this side of eternity, I am sorry to say. We stumble, we fall, we get up, we change. Such is the faith walk, though the goal must always stay true. In some sense, that's how the church spreads, not by building massive mega churches, but by (sorry for the crude analogy) shedding skin cells. People leave and start their own group and this happens over and over. I don't see that as weakness; I see it as church planting of sorts. I find it odd that church splits deny the odd man out the right to start a church as part of the deal, sometimes. We plant churches; let them go and plant, even if the guy gives you an ulcer. He's not stealing your sheep; they are, ultimately, Jesus' sheep. God will deal with it. I'm so weary of scoldings and arguments about Bible translations, specific theological tenets—yes, I do KNOW what I believe and why, but I'm not interested in fighting about it. I'd rather see lots of little churches than massive four-sermons-each-Sunday churches, if only for accountability reasons.
This is a very rambling and roundabout way of saying something, and I apologize for that. It's weighed on me since seeing this whole thing blow up online and the response to it. I can see a clear need and am frustrated we have a nation of believers who are concerned they don't know what they believe and why, and that they don't know how to find those answers on their own from good sources. I've contacted a few people in ministries and said that there is clearly an opening for you to create material that isn't fluffy. And it's not like a person can't find these answers on their own from good apologetics sources, etc.
Every single church—EVERY SINGLE CHURCH—should be teaching the fundamentals of faith, of what they believe and why, EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Refresher course for regular attendees, informative for newer ones, and you ensure you have a body of believers in agreement or, at the very least, understanding. Denominations believe different things. I understand that. As long as they adhere to the full gospel and don't start chucking out parts of the Bible that don't fit cultural and social changes, I don't have a problem with denominations, though some like to use that as proof of failure in the church. Rather, it seems like proof of humanity and instead of fighting, we just quietly agree to partner with other Bible-believing churches on a broad scale for our community and nation, but in our local body, we have naturally found those people we share beliefs with and get along to avoid strife ("as far is it depends on you, get along with others" can include going someplace else to avoid creating or feeding conflict). The individual who doesn't know what they believe and why is an easy target for Satan, and the local church body that doesn't know what they believe and why and has passed that ignorance on to their people is in the same boat. The latter will involve ugly fights, splits, and the usual nonsense, second only to (or directly related to) people following pastoral personalities.
Thanks so much for your reply. Lots of great insights. In my final couple of ‘graphs I mentioned the possibility of producing the kind of item that was evidently promised but not delivered in the Facebook post—and that still sounds like a viable idea. I saw more ads popping up on my feed, one of which had the same profile photo as “Emily Carter” but a totally different account name. 😲(Algorithms and or/string pullers doing their thing, I suppose.) I’m okay with denominations to a point, by the way, but would still love to break down unnecessary barriers; for example, I still think it could be possible to coexist on the question of paedobaptism or believers’ baptism. To me that’s not as crucial an issue as many other central planks or pillars of the faith, or perhaps even as I mentioned the differences between dispensational or Reformed hermeneutics or Arminianism as contrasted with Calvinism—with some lesser extremes still coexisting peaceably.
It’s obvious to me that you’re a genuine believer who is wisely up-front about your particulars, and that gives me more respect for your stands on issues important to you than an ill-defined, wish-washy sentimentality popularized in “seeker” churches. We shouldn’t put unnecessary impediments in the way of those who are seekers, and our services should always feel accessible and welcoming, yet there always should be a sense of reverence, dignity and wonder coming into the presence of the Most High God. There’s still a place for elevated prayers, thorough pedagogy for our kids, communion with God, joyous (even raucous) celebration at times yet also at other times deep sobriety and mourning.
As a (sometime) Presbyterian, I tend to take rigorous doctrinal teaching for granted because of my own fortunate upbringing, but there are plenty of “solid churches” that haven’t taken seriously the type of real-world apologetics required to live and move in our current milieu—and especially for our younger generations. You were right when you said we all stumble, and we all have our shortcomings and areas of shortsightedness. I hope your careful and well-read defense of the faith once delivered to the saints will have wide and lasting repercussions for the kingdom of Christ.
I don't think you have to hit new people in a church with "today we're talking about justification, sanctification, and glorification" and expect them not to flinch. I just think we kind of skirt around the direct thing, the first part of Sys Theo, and that's the "systematic" part. Some of us like order and systems. It helps us understand better, when we can see how something is related and interconnected. That's the beauty of *systematic* theology instead of random theology. I think we tend towards random theology driven by holidays, seasons, politics, social and current events, etc. There are reasons to do that, but if we revisit the orderly understanding of foundational beliefs once a year and build on top of them, it helps.
Growing up, I remember that, even as a kid, our pastor would preach the 16 fundamental beliefs of the A/G over a month or two, and my mom still has her little book that the denomination put out (I used it as one of the many sources in my worksheet). So you get this little book (it's very small), written in plain language with things defined, and it's a good way to go through the Bible systematically from beginning to end.
I don't know about other denominations, but I know not all A/G churches still do that (some are, frankly, whacky, so thanks Bethel and IHOP). We are in such a difficult time now that we can't skate by with fluff (if we ever could). The information age demands an answer every time you turn on a device and look at something. Someone will always give you an answer, and most of the time, it's not godly. If the world is doing that, we need to do that.
There is definitely room for that product. I hope decent Christian publishing houses took note and have something in the works. And really, I think that product already exists in multiple forms. It's just that Valorrea was better at the social media marketing game and told a better story (it's always the story that sells to the emotions) than those who have better, actual sys theo books. Sadly. Which is why there's such a pile-on over on Amazon with the similar titles. If I had money to burn, I'd order one of each and review them. But I can't afford that.
Hopefully, something I've written will get a few people inspired to find that good content somewhere and take it upon themselves to make sure their children and grandchildren know the reason they believe.
Julie,
Thanks so much for debunking this sketchy, Facebook-driven operation! As a dyed-in-the-wool Presbyterian whose tradition perennially out-punches its weight in terms of systematic theology and apologetics (B.B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, Cornelius Van Til, Francis Schaeffer, R.C. Sproul, etc.), I was still almost taken in by the *concept* that is quite valid in itself, that today’s kids and grandkids are not being grounded in the “whys” of what they’re taught in Sunday School class.
Most telling in your meticulously researched (even by Presbyterian standards!) was the video that showed a Sunday School Bible lesson booklet masquerading as a book on systematic theology. What’s troublesome to me is the provenance of even the “fine” material constituting that book. In the second of the two videos you shared, the topics could be read at the top of the page, but the body copy was of insufficient resolution to be made out or read. The question of copyright is the derivative nature of the material and appropriate credit or citation attributed to an actual, personal author. The first clue is the attribution of the authorship on the cover, “by Valorrea.” Big red flag there.
But perhaps more bewildering still is the question, who does this kind of thing? Who knows enough about the concerns of American Evangelical parents and grandparents to try to pull off this kind of caper? And besides the obvious profit motive, to what end? If this were some scammer in Romania, how could such a person convincingly pose as an American Christian grandma on Facebook—and why would they even want to?
Perhaps the argument being made by “Emily Carter,” whomever she may or may not be, could be presented to several forward-looking Christian publishers who might have the capacity to produce such a volume; Zondervan comes to mind; Cook Communications, Navpress, or The Gospel Coalition, perhaps in collaboration or cooperation with the Association of Christian Schools. (Many others I’m surely leaving out, including the Southern Baptist’s’ Holman Press, as well as the go-to Thomas Nelson). I would at least be somewhat concerned about denominational skew—you and I would apparently disagree on charismatic doctrine or dispensationalism, probably, but in many instances these distinctives do not negate or outweigh our core areas of agreement—and sometimes would be helpful simply to accurately list or run down the varying viewpoints, presenting them fairly, perhaps in footnotes. A lot of what we’re talking about is in contrast with a secular, atheist/agnostic perspective anyway.
Your thoughts?
I'm at the stage/age where I can't remember if I told someone something in conversation or wrote about it in a blog post, so I might be repeating myself, but in anything, if you don't know why you believe what you believe, you're susceptible. The whole point (or idea, at least) of school is not just to learn important things, but to know why they are necessary to know and why some fact or process can be relied on. We know what the thing is, how it came to be, and why it can still be relied upon. The secular world does this well; it's standard procedure.
The Christian world does not do this well, currently. We have slipped into a feelings/emotional mode, which pairs poorly with Sys Theo.
I would do poorly in the military because it is hard for me to obey without a clear understanding of why something works, is a good idea, or should be done. In my Christian walk, faith is a tremendous leap for that same reason. We have some people thinking they are walking in faith when what they are really walking in is ignorance. It takes great faith to pursue, attempt to understand, process, and live out full Christian theology. Now, I'm not saying that unless you have an advanced theological degree, you are not a valid Christian. The Holy Spirit helps us understand the Word. But we have people whose Bible reading is Instagram daily verses or chapter-a-day check-the-box kind of thing and they aren't *learning* what the Bible says. Does that make sense? They have faith and lay claim to something they don't even grasp, something they don't even know they should grasp.
I don't know how those Valorrea folks tapped into some kind of Christian zeitgeist (was it the death of Charlie Kirk and monitoring the response after, which was very much about how he tried to help young people understand why beliefs mattered? I don't know), but they got it exactly right, and people on Facebook and online really responded. I can't speak to motive beyond what I've seen in the fruit of their actions (all of which is noted in the two blog posts). A day after Charlie Kirk's death, I was bombarded with all kinds of T-shirt sellers selling outright TP ripoffs or things similar to what would be associated with Charlie. I don't think we can appreciate the profit motive quite enough, particularly if we're operating with a conscience that knows we answer to God. But combined with the response online, the explosion of Sys Theo books for kids on Amazon, and Valorrea's newest book, a Sys Theo book for adults, it's clear there's a significant number of people aware (or not sure, but afraid) that their kids and grandkids, and even themselves, do not know what they believe and why.
Yes, you and I would disagree on some theological things, and that is okay; we can still be neighbors in the New Earth. But as I noted elsewhere, and as I've said multiple times, most recently to friends in the midst of a church blowup, if you have a body of believers who are sitting in the pews and don't know what they actually believe and why it can be believed, and you have a variety of differing view points, you WILL have a problem at some point. People will fight, choose sides, leave, and it is all very much unnecessary most of the time if we didn't let it boil to that point.
As rough as it sounds...if you've built a big church on soft-pedaling teaching so that ten years in, you have hyper-Calvinists mixed with hyper-grace or full-on Arminians...you are going to have a church fight, and it's going to be ugly. Sure, they might all end up in Heaven someday, but what damage will they do to the body down here? It is much better to be upfront about the beliefs a particular body holds immediately and all the time, rather than not teaching them directly and bluntly in a clear context.
That is, you can say, with the idea and hope of attracting more people and building big numbers, "well, they'll learn as we go through our different sermon series," and think you can have a healthy church built on vague but helpful teaching, but I would say, "no, you need to do a sermon series on what we believe and why, because people don't always get what you're saying if it's too subtle." I mean, some denominations have such a broad, vague statement of beliefs that they are inevitably creating local churches destined to split. The internet is teaching their people things, and they're bringing them into the local body and it's a mess.
Much of this is the fruit of seeker-sensitive and emergent church approaches in which, in order not to offend, the less theology offered the better, and it was replaced with programs, good times, and whatever else. So we have a bunch of people attending church and claiming Christ without any idea of what the basic beliefs are. More than once, I've been in a Bible study, and someone has said something so off the mark ("Was Jesus a created being?" or something like that), and I wonder how in the world they have gotten this far without understanding basic Christian theology. How can they attend a church for ten years and not know? How do they not even know what the denomination or individual church body believes?
I know people like the idea of a Rodney King church where we all get along (yes!) but then assume that will occur when everyone has the lowest common denominator of beliefs out there. That works for a while until that uneasy sense of not knowing what we believe and why sets in, and we go searching. (Or, frankly, when a person with domineering and control issues takes root in the church and decimates it over time.)
That perfect huge body of unified believers is not how it is on this side of eternity, I am sorry to say. We stumble, we fall, we get up, we change. Such is the faith walk, though the goal must always stay true. In some sense, that's how the church spreads, not by building massive mega churches, but by (sorry for the crude analogy) shedding skin cells. People leave and start their own group and this happens over and over. I don't see that as weakness; I see it as church planting of sorts. I find it odd that church splits deny the odd man out the right to start a church as part of the deal, sometimes. We plant churches; let them go and plant, even if the guy gives you an ulcer. He's not stealing your sheep; they are, ultimately, Jesus' sheep. God will deal with it. I'm so weary of scoldings and arguments about Bible translations, specific theological tenets—yes, I do KNOW what I believe and why, but I'm not interested in fighting about it. I'd rather see lots of little churches than massive four-sermons-each-Sunday churches, if only for accountability reasons.
This is a very rambling and roundabout way of saying something, and I apologize for that. It's weighed on me since seeing this whole thing blow up online and the response to it. I can see a clear need and am frustrated we have a nation of believers who are concerned they don't know what they believe and why, and that they don't know how to find those answers on their own from good sources. I've contacted a few people in ministries and said that there is clearly an opening for you to create material that isn't fluffy. And it's not like a person can't find these answers on their own from good apologetics sources, etc.
Every single church—EVERY SINGLE CHURCH—should be teaching the fundamentals of faith, of what they believe and why, EVERY SINGLE YEAR. Refresher course for regular attendees, informative for newer ones, and you ensure you have a body of believers in agreement or, at the very least, understanding. Denominations believe different things. I understand that. As long as they adhere to the full gospel and don't start chucking out parts of the Bible that don't fit cultural and social changes, I don't have a problem with denominations, though some like to use that as proof of failure in the church. Rather, it seems like proof of humanity and instead of fighting, we just quietly agree to partner with other Bible-believing churches on a broad scale for our community and nation, but in our local body, we have naturally found those people we share beliefs with and get along to avoid strife ("as far is it depends on you, get along with others" can include going someplace else to avoid creating or feeding conflict). The individual who doesn't know what they believe and why is an easy target for Satan, and the local church body that doesn't know what they believe and why and has passed that ignorance on to their people is in the same boat. The latter will involve ugly fights, splits, and the usual nonsense, second only to (or directly related to) people following pastoral personalities.
Thanks so much for your reply. Lots of great insights. In my final couple of ‘graphs I mentioned the possibility of producing the kind of item that was evidently promised but not delivered in the Facebook post—and that still sounds like a viable idea. I saw more ads popping up on my feed, one of which had the same profile photo as “Emily Carter” but a totally different account name. 😲(Algorithms and or/string pullers doing their thing, I suppose.) I’m okay with denominations to a point, by the way, but would still love to break down unnecessary barriers; for example, I still think it could be possible to coexist on the question of paedobaptism or believers’ baptism. To me that’s not as crucial an issue as many other central planks or pillars of the faith, or perhaps even as I mentioned the differences between dispensational or Reformed hermeneutics or Arminianism as contrasted with Calvinism—with some lesser extremes still coexisting peaceably.
It’s obvious to me that you’re a genuine believer who is wisely up-front about your particulars, and that gives me more respect for your stands on issues important to you than an ill-defined, wish-washy sentimentality popularized in “seeker” churches. We shouldn’t put unnecessary impediments in the way of those who are seekers, and our services should always feel accessible and welcoming, yet there always should be a sense of reverence, dignity and wonder coming into the presence of the Most High God. There’s still a place for elevated prayers, thorough pedagogy for our kids, communion with God, joyous (even raucous) celebration at times yet also at other times deep sobriety and mourning.
As a (sometime) Presbyterian, I tend to take rigorous doctrinal teaching for granted because of my own fortunate upbringing, but there are plenty of “solid churches” that haven’t taken seriously the type of real-world apologetics required to live and move in our current milieu—and especially for our younger generations. You were right when you said we all stumble, and we all have our shortcomings and areas of shortsightedness. I hope your careful and well-read defense of the faith once delivered to the saints will have wide and lasting repercussions for the kingdom of Christ.
I don't think you have to hit new people in a church with "today we're talking about justification, sanctification, and glorification" and expect them not to flinch. I just think we kind of skirt around the direct thing, the first part of Sys Theo, and that's the "systematic" part. Some of us like order and systems. It helps us understand better, when we can see how something is related and interconnected. That's the beauty of *systematic* theology instead of random theology. I think we tend towards random theology driven by holidays, seasons, politics, social and current events, etc. There are reasons to do that, but if we revisit the orderly understanding of foundational beliefs once a year and build on top of them, it helps.
Growing up, I remember that, even as a kid, our pastor would preach the 16 fundamental beliefs of the A/G over a month or two, and my mom still has her little book that the denomination put out (I used it as one of the many sources in my worksheet). So you get this little book (it's very small), written in plain language with things defined, and it's a good way to go through the Bible systematically from beginning to end.
I don't know about other denominations, but I know not all A/G churches still do that (some are, frankly, whacky, so thanks Bethel and IHOP). We are in such a difficult time now that we can't skate by with fluff (if we ever could). The information age demands an answer every time you turn on a device and look at something. Someone will always give you an answer, and most of the time, it's not godly. If the world is doing that, we need to do that.
There is definitely room for that product. I hope decent Christian publishing houses took note and have something in the works. And really, I think that product already exists in multiple forms. It's just that Valorrea was better at the social media marketing game and told a better story (it's always the story that sells to the emotions) than those who have better, actual sys theo books. Sadly. Which is why there's such a pile-on over on Amazon with the similar titles. If I had money to burn, I'd order one of each and review them. But I can't afford that.
Hopefully, something I've written will get a few people inspired to find that good content somewhere and take it upon themselves to make sure their children and grandchildren know the reason they believe.