New Youth Conference for fundamentalist!

That was sweet Superdave! I couldn't have said it better myself. But I must tell you that that kind of sarcasm doesn't go over well on this board.

 

I'm listening to one right now. I am hearing some very good teaching.

basic premise "God's Truth is not dependent on your personal experience."

 

Sponge Bob,

Where would I go to learn? First and best place is the book store. Andy Stanley, Phillip Yancey, John Piper, Rick Warren, Bill Hybels, John Ortberg, Ed Young Jr. and the lists goes on and on.

Before you or anyone else jumps on me, I don't endorse everything about any of them. But I learn and make determinations on how best to live my life and my ministry. And I compare what ministries and people seem to be passionate about the right things and making a difference in the lives of this generation and I try to grow and learn and be who I should be.

And I have found I shouldn't sit around and say I am doing everything "right" and everybody else is "apostate" if I don't even know what they are all about. And certainly if someone were to look over everything that I do as a leader of a church or in my personal life, they would be able to point out inconsitencies and areas where I am flat out wrong.

And that is why the doctrine of seperation as it is being talked about here is flawed in my opinion. If you carried it out to it's logical and honest conclusion you would have to seperate from yourself and your own church or whatever organization you are leading.

Or are you (and I don't mean that as "you" but as the generic) telling me that you are the one who has it all correct?

By the way, I might read some books of authors within the the movement you are talking about as well, if they wrote some. And if I found a particular author/teacher/professor who I thought could take me to a higher level and they were doing a conference, I certainly would consider attending.

 

Pastor Larry,

You asked if I would seperate from any organization?

Of course, but the list would be alot smaller than yours. And by seperate it doesn't mean "I take my ball and go home." It means I am like light and darkness whenever truth meets untruth and most likely people of darkness won't want light around.

And I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying when you compare your belief that you should seperate from John MacArthur and so should every other organization that you are going to be associated with or endorse with Jesus seperating from the Pharisees.

I would have to conclude that you are in Jesus' camp and John MacArthur would be the apostate Pharisees who didn't understand salvation whatsoever and is leading people astray.

Are you making that connection?

 

HappyG. Well said.

I think what you are reading on this thread is two differing view points on separation (one only has to read a while to see who's on which side of the issue). This forum is set up specifically for debate and discussion. That's what is going on here and it's worthwhile.

I for one do NOT have it all figured out. So much so that I don't think that I can pass judgment on someone like John MacArthur who has been and incredible encouragement to me. I wish it were black and white, because that's how I like things. But, it's not.

It's funny. MacArthur has done more to disciple young men in fundamentalism than just about anybody. He does it through his books and recordings. Even those who would separate from him acknowledge the positive impact he has had. I for one, am grateful. I for one, think he's a godly man.

 

Would you be willing to say who? </font>[/QUOTE]Doran is one. The other one isn't firsthand information, so I probably shouldn't put that name out.

 

I am not so sure about that. I am not accusing MacArthur of doctrinal deviancy to that degree. But clearly, Hayford is. And were Paul writing to MacArthur, would he not tell him to separate from Hayford? And if MacArthur refused, how would Paul have responded? To me, based on Paul's teaching as well as Peter and Jude, I would have to conclude Paul would have separated, but admonished him as a brother.

Ernest Pickerings Biblical Separation has a decent section on "Secondary Separation" (though I reject the nomenclature). He references 1 Tim 5:22 and the ordination of elders and the possibility of partaking in another's sin. He says

It is this last sentence that grabs my attention. Teh association is a participation in their sins. Would MacArthur approve of the ordination of Hayford? If so, then what was Charismatic Chaos written about? If not, then why would he endorse his ministry now? That doesn't seem to compute. It seems that the principle of 1 Tim 5:22 is violated by MacArthur.

As I have often said, it is not an easy situation. I am sure that there are no easy answers to it. I am concerned by what seems to be a flippancy about it.

BTW, your sarcasm doesn't bother me. I don't do it any more because it is too easily misunderstood.

 

Of course not. I am not in anyway equating MacArthur with Pharisees. I have clarified that several times already I think. In that case, I was merely pointing out that the "issue about people" was not unbiblical. In the Bible, people were the focal point of separation discussion.

I don't think separation means "take your ball and go home" all the time. I think sometimes it does, but not always. It is true that being light means darkness won't want you around. But it is also true that darkness will be willing for you to be quiet about its darkness if you will.

How would you draw lines of separation and what Scriptures would you base them on?

 

Sponge Bob,

Exactly.

The part that makes me "chuckle" is in the world of evangelicalism, MacArthur is such a "stick in the mud." I mean he is the one calling out Hybels and Warren and every other "seeker friendly" pastor and "compromiser".

And then you come here and he is being called out as some weak neo.

At some point, you step back and realize something seems to be more "fallen" than "heavenly."

 

I view Dr. Ollila as a man of high integrity. I would be very disappointed if he accepted this invitation knowing who was speaking but without discussing the invitation with Dr. Olsen. The rumors about Dr. O not being aware are coming out of Northland, from people in the administration.

Andy

 

Pastor Larry,

Quite honestly, I haven't had to "draw lines" of seperation...maybe ever!

I'm not really concerned about what other people in the "profession" think of me. I not in a denomination with "political" aspiration of rising the leadership ladder. I'm not looking for some institutions approval. And the Catholic church hasn't contacted me to come speak for them. (I would go if they invited me and didn't restrict what I had to say)

I am simply a "life-coach" to a group of people that live in Northern Virginia. The people are just ordinary people who go to work every day and come home exhausted.

The only line of seperation that I try to draw is the line of seperation between how a person lives who actually believes that Jesus came to this earth 2000 years ago, lived, died and rose from the grave; and a person who doesn't believe that event happened.

I spend my time drawing that line of seperation. And that isn't very hard to draw. I find that people who don't believe what I believe in that area don't tend to want to talk to me unless they have a relationship with me and trust me.

If you are asking me how I draw lines of seperation against John MacArthur or BJU? I don't. Or at least, I haven't had too.

If I did, I would have to educate some people on who they are and then tell them why I don't like them.

Maybe we just live in two different worlds. Or I am missing some area that I should be seperating from someone.

 

I don't think Matt Olson would be in exact step on this specific issue since he would have more interest and/or training in the theological purity of ecclesiastical separation, but I am confident that he would be most gracious with Dr. Ollila about the whole matter. Dr. Ollila is an earthy kind of man who is most comfortable choppin' through trees than through theological threads, though he is one who would appreciate the need for it to be done. He is consumed with an incredible love for God, and desires nothing more than to see young people love God, too. I mentioned that I don't agree with him on this issue, but I think it would be completely out of the realm of grace for anyone to pigeon-hole him into a slot based on this one decision.

 

It is difficult to sift through the rumors, but firsthand information is that when Doran was asked to speak (he declined),he asked Frank Hamrick if Dr. Ollila knew about Holland, and Hamrick said yes and that he and Dr. Ollila had discussed it. I don't understand the "he didn't know" information that is coming out of Northland, but a grapevine has tangles, so I'll wait to pass judgement.

 

This quote, although speaking of a different group, draws a conclusion I believe is helpful in considering how Fundamentalists should act when confronted with such situations. The tone is not, in my esitimation, harsh or condemning, but is also matter-of-fact when it comes to what one must do when identifying with Fundamentalism.

Full article here: http://www.faith.edu/seminary/faithpulpit/2004/janfeb04.htm

 

I haven't seen anyone here calling him a weak neo. I personally think he is a very strong neo, strong in doctrine and teaching, and unfortunately weak in his associations. But I think it goes to Sponge Bob's (I think) earlier point about it not being all or nothing.

 

From Happy G

]I think to a large degree for all of us this is theoretical. I will never be asked to speak with John MacArthur so it really doesn't matter that much practically speaking, but we do need to be able to wrestle through it. I have had to deal with it here when I was invited to join in a community event that included all the churches, including the Catholic church. I was told "Father Jim" would just be praying. i told him I couldn't participate in something like that.

I feel the same way.

No, probably not. This is somethign that rarely comes up. I think as pastors we have to be prepared to deal with it and think through the issues.

 

Greg, thank you for posting the good quote from Faith. From what I have read, my understanding is that MacArthur and Holland have had the integrity to shed the fundamentalism identification on their own and consider themselves to be conservative evangelicals. Has anyone read or heard something to the contrary? I have a more difficult time with those who carry the fundamentalism I.D. in their pocket and pull it out only when convenient. That is the question that I have about Frank Hamrick, one that first originated in my mind when I heard his kids enrolled at Cedarville. I sound like I'm beating a dead horse on this one, but it's the integrity issue again, and the willingess to stand for what you believe without pretense. Romancing both circles only works for so long when you're in leadership, so it will take care of itself if this is what is happening.

 

Pastor Larry,

Honestly, I just can't imagine the scenerio where I have to make John MacArthur or his youth pastor the enemy or seperate from them.

If someone in my church said they were going to here him preach, I would be thrilled that they were doing that instead of watching television.

If a young pastor was going to a conference at his church, I would be thrilled. There have been very few men with the mind capable of discerning the truths of the Bible better than him. And I know this, if wrote out all that I thought I believed in multiple books it wouldn't be hard for people to find fault with what I wrote. The only difference between me and John MacArthur would be that I didn't even realize what I was saying!

If John MacArthur was coming to town and looking for a place to preach, I would absolutely love to have him.

So I just don't see the need to be out there defining how I am better than John MacArthur. Or how John MacArthur is flawed. That is a given. He is a man who is flawed. The fact is anybody could find fault in me as well if I were as public and as publicized. Meaning, if you heard I was preaching at the "Proteens" conference the only reason you wouldn't have a problem with me is you don't know my faults.

I just don't see the point.

And that is exactly the reason why the "movement" we are discussing with the key players mentioned will have a hard time being a "God-focused" group. Whenever a man such as Ollila or Hamrick decides that God wouldn't have a problem with them sharing the stage with a youth pastor from a great church in California and a ministry that has positively impacted millions of people around the world, all the "men" who have been trained to "put themselves in the position of God" by supposing to know all that is right and the interpretations of interpretations of interpretations begin to criticise. And the overwhelming presence of man is felt.

It is the reason many choose to leave rather than to change from within. Because in a mindset such as this, to do anything differently will bring upon yourself the wrath of men. So you can either be "political" and don't do anything that would upset the masses...rightly or wrongly. Or you can leave the movement and once the press releases have been released that another one has "gone the way of the world", you can minister in a relevant and fresh way without the fears of being criticized for doing what you feel is right.

I personally, have made my decision and am having the time of my life reaching the people in my community. I hope people will pray for me that I will be able to do better than I am doing and I will continue to be able to grow in the grace and knowledge of God.

 

I would feel the same way.

I would feel the same way, and simply caution him about certain philosophies and teachings.

I would not because that would be to endorse his ministry and I can't do that.

I don't think anyone here is doing that, certainly not I.

The point is the revelation of God and obedience to it. God has reasons for the commands he has given, particularly in this area. He sees the necessity of pure body and a pure church. He does not give us the prerogative to choose otherwise.

Have you ever considered that the reason some are uncomfortable, even turning down the opportunity to speak, is because they are God focused? Look at all the heat they are receiving from man, including you. And this kind of stuff has been going on for decades. If they were driven by man, they would certainly be giving in by now it seems to me to please men. But they are God centered and concerned about God's opinion rather than man. Therefore, they will take these difficult stands that seem strange to others in order to please God and be faithful to his word. I don't think many of them (if any) would "put themselves in the position of God." That sounds like you are too concerned about these men.

It seems to me that you are the one preaching the fear of man, rather than of God. You seem unwilling to let these men be faithful to their conscience before God.

Or you can stay in, don't worry about the politics, do what is right, and minister in a relevant and fresh way without fear. That is exactly what I have done. I am not the least bit worried about what they think of me and what I do. I, like you, am having the time of my life reaching people and loving every minute of it ... well most minutes. And I don't have to endorse the ministry of men who are disobedient to do it. Most people in my church don't know anything about this kind of discussion. Which is good ... But I would imagine that if they were faced with the facts of the situation as they stand, they would probably give a pretty good answer.

To me, it just seems that you are as guilty as those you oppose of making these about men. Because someone doesn't believe that we should preach with a man, than you blast that man. Give people hte freedom of conscience.