New Youth Conference for fundamentalist!

I have heard Frank Hamrick speak, and I have heard Les Ollila many times at Northland. Both are very good speakers both to and about youth issues.

Looks like a good opportunity.

 

The inclusion of a speaker from MacArthur's pastoral staff is virtually unique in traditional fundamentalist circles. It will be interesting to see if Hamrick gets praise or potshots from the fundy world. I'm hoping for the former.

 

I for one do not see this as a positive development. Those of you who are familiar with the Greenville-area churches may remember what happened to Southside Baptist when Pastor Handford decided he would bring in *anyone* whom he thought could help his people. He broke with fundamentalism and repudiated its philosophy of separation. Bringing in someone from Master’s is very similar to what Handford did as he guided his church away from fundamentalism.

I have used Proteens materials in the past, and while I don’t work with youth directly anymore, I think I would have a very hard time using their stuff in the future if they go down the same road as Southside and produce materials consistent with that philosophy.

Frankly, the most interesting aspect of this conference is the scheduled presence of Les Ollila. I have heard from two different sources that he was caught off-guard by who else was speaking. It will be very interesting to see if he decides to back out or stay in. Whatever his decision, it would be helpful to hear him explain his rationale – especially with the emphasis lately on seasoned fundamentalists mentoring younger fundamentalists.

Andy

 

Andy,

It was surprising to me that an organization with the reputation of Proteens would deal with someone like Les Ollila in that fashion. I have to believe that someone who has traveled in fundy circles as long as Frank Hamrick would be aware of the potential for criticism that would come to Dr. O and let him know up front what was going to happen.

That is why I did what I wish you would have done--call someone truly in the know before posting. The person I spoke to at Proteens said that Frank Hamrick and Les Ollila spent two days together during which time they discussed the conference extensively, including discussion of the speakers and the likely response to those speakers--both positive and negative.

I'm not going to go into every detail of what I was told about why Frank Hamrick did what he did. I would encourage anyone with questions to call them. Some info is also available on the web site.

Can anyone offer a reason from Scripture for why Proteens should not do this? Let's leave the worn-out separation rhetoric at the door and really interact with Scripture. What has Rick Holland done that demands that he be warned and withdrawn from?

 

MacArthur is an anomaly to be sure. He is certainly doctrinally orthodox. I share great concerns about his associations as I have made known many times here (and received a lot of flak from some people).

Having said that, I don't know how big of a deal this is. I am quite sure that the whole perspective involved is the one endorsed by Bixby in his paper about unanimity vs. unity, in which he pointed out some glaring inconsistencies in the position Davey articulated with particular regards to MacArthur. I have corresponded with neither of them, but was glad to see Bixby articulate the thoughts he did. Whether his conclusion was right or wrong, those issues are certainly ones that need to be addressed. We have to, at some level, address the reason why we will associate with doctrinal aberrancy (e.g. blood of Christ, translations, repentance) while rejecting doctrinal fidelity because of his associations. Whatever else Mac might be, he is not doctrinally weak (though his church polity leaves much to be desired); nor is he timid. To me, it is inconsistent to associate with the first while rejecting the second. Which was what Bixby said, essentially. (FTR, I came to that conclusion long ago; I just didn't write about it ). But that is off topic.

I have become less enamored with pro-teens over the years because I think it was fundamentally flawed and too expensive (when I was a youth pastor). Having said that, I think the issue at Southside was entirely different, at least as of now. Time will tell if ProTeens heads where Southside did, but it doesn't appear to the way that it is headed now. Handford certainly would hvae been far better going the direction of MacArthur then where he went and eventually ended up.

I think until fundamentalists start wrestling with the cultural divide of the modern generation, we will do nothing but preach to the choir. So I don't know whether this conference will address those issues or not. I hope so. Hamrick and Ollila built their ministries on a previous generation. How equipped are they to lead a new generation?

Of course, I just found out today that I am not a young fundamentalist anymore. Apparently, the talking heads got together and decided 35 was the cut off. It totally ruined my day ...

 

Sig,

I have corresponded with someone "in the know" (adminstration at Northland), and the impression I was given is that this was a surprise.

 

My son-in-law started Proteens 2 years ago with 4 teenagers. He now has an average of 50 teens on Wed nights!!!

Proteens works!

 

Siggy wrote:
Can anyone offer a reason from Scripture for why Proteens should not do this? Let's leave the worn-out separation rhetoric at the door and really interact with Scripture. What has Rick Holland done that demands that he be warned and withdrawn from?

This is a great question and worthy of a response. I know Frank Hamrick well, and I know the reasons why he is doing what he is doing. He is deeply concerned with the theologically shallow, recreation-centered, behaviorist style of youth ministry that is present in Fundamentalism. He is equally as concerned with the rampant, uncontrolled pragmatism and de-emphasis on theology of "popular" youth ministry, as evidenced in such ministries as "Group", Youth Specialties, Purpose-Driven Youth Ministry. Frank is familiar with what Rick has presented and published on Student Ministries (http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/SC03-1053.htm). Frank and Rick say the same thing. If you look, there is nothing of this nature for youth workers (that which emphasizes theology, expository preaching, etc). I believe this is going to prove to be invaluable for those who attend.
Who in "fundamentalism" other than Les, could Frank have invited to avoid having Rick?

 

This is just a conferance, what is wrong with recieving valuable instruction from men such as Hamirck. I think it is great that Les and Frank are speaking in the same conferance. Maybe we are finally starting to see a move towards historic fundamentalism, that was a bit more inclusive than what is called fundamentalism today.

I wonder if those who are critical of this conferance read any of John Macarthur's books, if so what is wrong from hearing Frank Hamirck in person?

 

I don't think having Les and Frank together are the issue at all. They have spoken together many times. The issue is having MacArthur's youth pastor there. MacArthur has some questionable practices in his associations that has led fundamentalists to be wary of and to separate from him. We long for the day when MacArthur takes a more consistent position, and I (and many others) have read his books and enjoyed his ministry. But that does not smooth over the problems.

 

Pastor Larry wrote:
The issue is having MacArthur's youth pastor there. MacArthur has some questionable practices in his associations that has led fundamentalists to be wary of and to separate from him

What are these "practices and associations"? I have never heard some one articulate (using Scripture in cotext) a solid argument to support such a claim. I welcome you to be the first. If we want to talk about historic fundamentalism, then lets talk Frank Hamrick, a Baptist, teaming up with Rick Holland, a conservative evangelical, because they agree wholeheartedly on their core of doctrine. That is just plain refreshing to see. Doctrine trumping association, not the other way around.

 

If there is a weakness in fundamentalism along these lines (and I don't necesarrily disagree), by inviting non-fundamentalists to address the issue you are in sense saying that fundamentalists need to move from their position to the conservative evangelical position. I think Frank would have been better served to say that we need to emphasize theology, expository preaching, etc., with our teens and here are some fundamentalists who are doing just that. Oh, and they haven't had to sacrifice issues of personal separation or worldly behavior to do it. In fact, it has strengthened their ability to give their teens strong scriptural support for their positions and personal standards.

Instead, this conference brings people in from ministries where issues of worldliness and un-Christlike behavior come to the forefront of my mind. I will never forget when my brother came home from Masters one year with a video tape sold in their bookstore that showed John MacArther in a montage of chapel scenes all played to the music of American Bandstand. Or how he was greated for Freshman arrival by a pair of girls wearing hot pink short-shorts. Do we really have to sacrifice our fundamentalist heritage so we can promote expository, Christ-centered preaching?

Andy

 

Apollogies, I meant to say menttion brother Holland, not Hamerick. Two last names that start with H.

 

I would be far from the first to voice them, but that is not the point of this thread. Let's keep it on topic.

 

Based on your account and a PM from another poster, I absolutely believe that NBBC leadership is saying such things. However, I've spoken with a Proteens employee (not Frank Hamrick) who was present when Dr. H and Dr. O were discussing all the potential speakers. He told me that the MacArthur connections were discussed in detail. If anyone wants his name, I know how to contact him. If you want to, PM me and I will e-mail him and see if he minds discussing it with you.

Have any other posters talked with someone who was present when this initial conversation took place (i.e. Dr. Ollila, for those whose sources are in the NBBC administration)? I'm not going to speculate on how the confusion could have arisen, but when our sources are further and further away from the original participants, it becomes easier to see how things become lost in translation.

 

I don't know if fundamentalism's heritage ever included strong theology. Let's face it, we have a history rooted in revivalism or Finneyism, if you will. I agree that that needs to change and I think it is changing. However, fundamentalism has always included the idea of separation, including ecclesiastical, personal, and filial. And while there are groups that focus on that aspect of fundamentalism to an unhealthy degree, I reject the notion that these areas of separation are not important or even unbiblical.

Ironically, this conference has a posted doctrinal statement that includes the very issues of separation that I mentioned above. I really wonder how some of the participants can agree to that doctrinal statement without reservation.

Your experiences with fundamentalism must be much different than mine. This statement does not ring true to me at all.

Andy

 

I think Siegried is essentially correct in his statement about the over emphasis on rules and regulations. I think guilt plays a huge factor and I say that as a life long fundamentalist who has every intention of remaining one. I have a great conversation last night with a good friend of mine in the adminstration of one of hte fundamental colleges. We discussed the direction of fundamentalism and the confusion that many are seeing because we don't have solid theological arguments for many of the positions we take.

I fear we too easily fall into a guilt trip method ... If you don't have your daily quiet time (God and I time or DDDR ... for those who know what that means) you are ungodly or weak. I just think we have gone down the guilt road too much rather than preaching love based obedience. And the bad thing is that I don't even think we know that we do it. I have in the recent year or two come to some astounding conclusions (for me anyway) about these kinds of issues. I think we abhor the popedom of Catholicism with good reason, but set up our own popedoms with fundamental leaders. Our worship is very uninspiring. I was recently at a conference at a major fundamental church and found myself somewhere between laughing and crying during the congregational singing becuase it was so anemic and lifeless. I thought ... Man this is what is wrong. We "worship" God like we are reading a grocery list.

But enough rambling from me. Suffice it to say, I agree with Siegfried more than with Andy on this one.