New Youth Conference for fundamentalist!

Well said, PL, well said.

 

A misunderstanding of ecclesiastical separation has placed a warped emphasis on the word "separate." As fundamentalists, there hasn't been a need for us to even use this term in relationship with MacArthur, because there is no joining. How can we "separate" from a relationship that does not exist? He doesn't have any particular relationship with any of the ministries that I'm familiar with within Biblical Fundmentalism because our differing philosophy and methodology alone would precluded that. The only reason it has become an issue now is because an organization that proports to be fundamentalist has made the decision to pull in a person who has openly declared his disagreement with fundamentalism. Who is the one making an issue here? I find it disturbing that this conference is being touted as something completely new and innovative because it is focusing on the sovereignty of God and careful exposition of His Word. That is not new to fundamentalism, and I do not like the inference that it takes a conservative evangelical to correct our focus and engage our minds biblically. I have been to many youth conferences within fundamentalism that did not center around behavioral issues alone or exclude solid exposition of Scripture or a focus on our Sovereign God.

 

While I do infer that from comments on this post, that is not the impression I get from the conference website. I totally agree that there are some fundamental conferences and groups that are dealing with Youth ministry with proper focus, and its too bad that the stigma exists, but if we are honest about the state of Fundamentalism, particularly related to Baptists. It is not an altogether common event.

I don't believe that by attending this conference, or even by speaking at it, any of these men would be failing to separate from false teaching or disobedience. Although it is closer to the line than perhaps I would go.

 

I Have looked through ProTeens (Positive Action For Christ's) website and have not seen anywhere where they "proport to be fundamentalist". They do have bullets on their doctrinal statement that say they separate from neo-evangelicals and apostates. I think the they are defining who they believe is NOT a neo-evangelical by inviting Holland. In fact, I also know that their scope of influence as a ministry is MUCH MUCH greater than you must think. They have an entire school curriculum and it is used in many ACSI schools as well as AACS schools.

US!

One of the reasons ProTeens is touting this as a new kind of conference is because it is not workshop based. It is going to have tracks. Each year they will add another track. There are no break out sessions. You could find this out if you called ProTeens.

Could you please share with me the specific conferences you have been to that are God-focused within fundamentalism? You say there are "many". Please list two. Keep in mind that this is the SPECIFIC purpose and theme of the God-Focused conference. That's like saying, "Who does Calvary think they are having a "Leadership Conference". Are they trying to say that nobody else teaches leadership! Forget them! I've been to lots of other conferences that taught leadership."

 

What about this page?

It is ridiculous to suggest that Positive Action For Christ has not been identified as a fundamentalist organization. If you want internet-based proof, I submit for you a quote from Youth Imperative's "about us" page:

source: http://youthimperative.net/content/WhoWeAre.aspx

You will then see at this page that Frank Hamrick is listed as President of Youth Imperative, and also as Founder of PosAct. It is obvious that they are a Fundamentalist organization, and have billed themselves publicly as such.

 

The article from Faith is interesting, but I'm afraid does not take full account of the complex situation in the SBC. There is still a battle being waged in the denomination between liberal and conservative elements. Thus, I would not endorse some things the denomination does, but I would applaud the conservatives who are fighting for truth. In fact, I would love to see graduates of fundamentalist seminaries entering the SBC to help bring it back to its Biblical moorings.

It's time fundamentalists think of themselves as Puritans, not Separatists. Puritans fought for truth as long as possible. When it became obvious that they would not prevail THEN they left.

The article from Faith, along with some posters here, criticizes some who do not call themselves fundamentalists. Names don't matter. Beliefs do.

For years "fundamentalist" has been listed as a pejorative term in dictionaries. In addition to its positive associations, "fundamentalist" carries associations with people like J. Frank Norris and Jack Hyles on the one side, and terrorists on the other side. If I had not grown up seeing the better elements of fundamentalism, I would be repelled by the prevailing perception of the movement.

For Southern Baptists or other evangelicals who did not "grow up" in fundamentalism, I see no reason why they would seek that title. In fact, even the immovable Bob Jones University is shying away from the title:
http://www.tks.org/Archives/bob_jones,_iii.htm

 

The history of fundamentalism shows exactly that to be what they did. The early days of the fundamentalist movement was a "stay in" movement, even in the days of hte NAE in the early 40s when fundamentalists tried to steer the NAE in the right direction. But they failed and subsquently withdrew.

Practices matter as well, and that is the issue here. It is not just "what they believe." It is also "what they do."

Even in the SBC, you have no real fundamentalists. There has been a revival of biblical doctrine, but a failure of a biblical stand. And that should be distressing.

 

The article was written in light of Cedarville's formalizing ties with the SBC. It does not seek to criticize the SBC, but to point out the differences between where they are and where Cedarville was, thorugh its historic GARBC ties. There is a lesson to be learned here.

The article is not arguing that the SBC should adopt the title. It is arguing that fundamentalists should not and cannot seek alliances with them and be consistent to their fundamentalist identifcation as defined by the practice of biblical separation.

As Dr. George says in the article, we applaud the victories won by the conservatives in the SBC. In the context of this discussion, we can praise the theology and teaching of conservatives like Holland and MacArthur. But for us to enter into dialogue and cooperation with them is to adopt the methodology of New Evangelicalism, and to compromise our doctrinal purity. For the practicing fundamentalist, it is not a step toward greater holiness and obedience- it is a dilution and tainting of what we have known to be consistent with sound Bible teaching.

Have you ever read the biography of Bob Ketcham- Portrait of Obedience? It's worthwhile if you haven't- and worth reading again if it's been a few years.

 

I am very familiar with the intent(and controversy) that surrounded this article. It is a leap to say the suggestion of a new title is the indication of a shying away from the old. BJU has had no shying away from their identification as fundamentalists. Even if the term "fundamentalism" changes, its foundational belief structure is based on the very Word of God and will not change; and separatism is inextricably linked to fundamentalism, even if it has been done very poorly. There has been a sounding call for fundamentalism's best exegetes and theologians to extend their efforts toward a renewed articulation and defense of biblical separation, and I am confident we will witness the heed to that call. Though the voice of fundamentalism has become anemic, there is a sure and confident moving among the ranks that don't preclude BJU, but certainly don't center around them.

 

A fundamentalist practices ecclesiastical separation. The SBC does not. Therefore, by definition, the SBC is not fundamentalist, yet anway, and while they have made good strides under Mohler at Southern, it is unlikely that they will return to true fundamentalism.

There are no "elite" at Detroit that I know of. The issues in the SBC run deep and far and we cannot smooth over them just because they have come back to a biblical doctrine.

Fundamentalism is being redefined on the one hand by the KJVO side of things and on the other side by the conservative evangelicals who want to use the name but reject the practice. We must maintain the true meaning of fundamentalist rather than opening it up to include those who do not share its values.

 

Your irrelevant "Leadership Conference" analogy demonstrates you responded to my post without giving any viable thought to what you had read. The concern I addressed was in the conference being marketed as NEW "because it is not about activities, behavior, methods, etc." and marketing it as UNIQUE "because it is equipping you to give your youth a passion for God." I use the word "many" to decribe the conferences I have been to since my first excellent one was over 25 years ago at the Wilds with Frank Hamrick and Major Ron Brooks as the keynote speakers, who focused on the attributes of God and our need as youth leaders to know and love Him ourselves. Since then I have been to several other youth conferences at the Wilds that had a God-focus, with attention given to knowing and loving Him. Throughout the years, I have attended a myriad of church-sponsored conferences and several at smaller fundamental camps, some very poor and some excellent. I completely agree we need improvement in sharpening our focus, but there is a difference between promoting the improvement of a focus and suggesting the focus has never existed. The point I'm attempting to make is that it would be sad, and prideful, for anyone involved in this conference to actually believe that they are spearheading the first youth conference that is God-focused with a singular goal of equipping leaders to give youth a passion for God.

 

The answer is obvious and I will be more than happy to answer it. The answer is No, they would not have been for this reason. They are not separatist. The early fundamentalists tried to stay in and reform, but they could not. Because of their stand, they withdrew in obedience to Scripture. They were separatists. The landscape is certainly different today but that doesn't change the facts.

 

What?? The SBC reformed in doctrine, but not in their separatistic practices. I hope one day that they will. But they have not yet done that.

 

The goal of fundamentalists is not merely the reform of doctrine. THe goal was obedience to God and purity in the church. They realized that cooperation with error could not sustain a pure church, and thus, they separated.

If they were historic fundamentalists, they would have separated. That is exactly how the GARBC and the FF (now FBF) came into existence. They separated from the NBC. The defining mark of fundamentalism is not merely doctrine. It commitment to biblical separation. It is you who are rewriting history. You should read the histories by Beale and Pickering. Not knowing the history has led you to endorse a weaker position that fundamenatalism has not historically embraced.