New Youth Conference for fundamentalist!

Superdave, you successfully quoted from the GodFocused website. What's your point?

I would say that JMac (and his sidekick Rick) are
1. NOT liberal
2. NOT Neo-evangelical
3. Are NOT apostates and
4. Do NOT compromise with unbelief

 

Greg, I'd encourage you to call him. For some reason, emails don't seem to communicate tone too well.

I don't presume that Dr. O and Frank are head and shoulders above these other men. I can say that I have heard Dr. O and Frank both clearly articulate a "God-focused" philosophy. Dr. O in his "Biography of God" and "Works of God" stuff, and Frank in his Leadership Training Course, and another CD ProTeens puts out. I have also heard Rick articulate it.

I'm simply saying that I haven't heard any of these other guys be as clear.

I believe another "Focus" conference was initiated in Michigan last year. It too was going to be more "no-nonsense" than the other conferences. From what I hear (even though a beautiful full-color brochure was sent out) there were so few guys that registered that it was cancelled.

I looked at that brochure and the list of speakers was your typical lineup of fundies. Could it be that the young guys, generally speaking, are tired of the status-quo within fundamentalism. They see a disconnect between our fundamental heros and their inconsistencies with scripture. I believe these young guys who are youth pastors KNOW that it's NOT about behaviorism and that separation with MacArthur and the like doesn't line up with Scripture (and is at worst a gray issue). They're sick to death of hearing about standards that are sourced in the philosophy of a couple men and the culture of the 60s but nowhere to be found in Scripture.

I think this survey that is out is going to be revealing to the "old guard" and their spoon-fed minions.

 

They obviously do believe in separation. As to your four points, I would say the same, whats your point.

 

And thank you for those kind words.

Andy

 

Superdave. My point is, is that you sound like a perfect candidate for this conference. Are you going? If so, look for me (I'll be the one with a Sponge Bob on emblazened on my chest).

 

Graham made his major move in the 50's. Any movement on his part since then is just a natural consequence of his disobedience. When he moved, fundamentalists separated from him; non-fundamentalists didn't. I think some people are just coming to their senses as they observe the mess in which broader evangelicalism finds itself due to its new evangelical heritage.

Andy

 

So Graham made one decision and badda-boom, badda-bing he is where he is today.

Kind-of like when you go forward at camp and dedicate your life to God and you have done all that you need to do. No progressive sanctification or anything.

The way I see it is that Graham made a whole BUNCH of decisions. Call it progressive de-sanctification.

I guess we can officially write off ProTeens. They have taken that dreaded first step down the slippery slope. Rest In Peace ProTeens. Yet another tradgedy.

By the way: I know several people first-hand who were saved under Graham's ministry. Praise the Lord!

 

Basically, yes. He set his course in the 50's, followed it, and now it's pretty easy to see where ecumenical evangelization leads you.

I hope not. Contrary to popular belief, fundamentalists do not take pleasure in the downfall of any. At least we shouldn't. I'm not saying we don't have our warts.

I fear for those who were given false hopes because he did not clearly distinguish between the true gospel and the many false gospels promoted by the apostates who participated in these crusades with him. But that is for another thread...

Andy

 

Well said Dr. Bob. Thank you. Your wisdom is a breath of fresh air.
Have any of you entertained the thought that ProTeens knew what they were doing when they invited Rick. That they had heard the tired and unbiblical arguments and decided that they weren't going to play the game. So instead of sitting in their offices meditating on the evils of non-legalistic, truly biblical ministries, they decided they would do something helpful and profitable for youth pastors.
The idea of a conference in Fundamentalism that doesn't just sit around talk about Fundamentalism (which I believe only exists in the mind of very small group of people) but actually has a purpose, is truly monumental.
A Conference that focuses on the nature of God, the beauty of Christ, and the sufficiency of Scripture...hope it doesn't do too much damage to those that attend.

 

Greg wrote:

Greg,

Your point is well taken. I think JMacJR just made a relevant point, though. I believe one could make the case that Hamrick is sending the message that fundamentalism is absorbed with the degrees of separation (on non-essentials, to boot) that it has abandoned a theocentric approach to ministry.

I personally believe that fundamentalism needs to be shaken up. Whether that motivation is primary or even tangential to Hamrick or not, I do not know.

In any case, Hamrick hasn't said that. He has said a lot about the theocentric stuff. Who are the ones who will make separation the issue here? I think may well be people who would rather write him off than deal with the difficult, foundational issues he's dredging up. I'm not indicting any one individual on this board, but that is my overall sense of the tenor of the fundamentalist denomination.

By the way Sponge Bob, are you Frank Hamrick in disguise? If so, I'm going to have to separate from you over your endorsement of this worldly character.

 

This is the type of misconception that gives biblical separation a bad name. Frankly, it surprises me to see Bob repeat it as if it were true. It reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of ecclesiastical separation. I can't imagine that Bob doesn't understand this. I can't imagine why he would say it.

The issue of ecclesiastical separation has nothing to do with posting on the same message board. It has to do with joining hands in a cooperative effort with those who are disobedient or false teachers. Ecclesiastical separation is not about personal separation from an individual. I can sit down and have lunch with a great many people whom I consider to be disobedient in this area. That is not a violation of separation. To have them to speak for me is a completely different issue. Let's not cloud that by simplistic misrepresentations such as Bob presented here.

As far as "intrinsic evil" in second and third degree separation, that seems a great overstatement and again, reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how many fundamentalists view separation. 2nd degree is an unfortunate misnomer that we would do well to abandon. Separation is always first degree. We separate from someone ecclesiastically based on that person's response to the biblical truth. In other words, I am not separating from Person A because they fail to separate from Person B. I am separating from Person A because they failed to be obedient to God in this matter of separation. Yet I am not to treat him as an enemy, but to admonish him as a brother.

 

I don't think this is that monumental. There are many fundamental ministries that focus on the nature of God and beauty of Christ and the sufficiency of Scripture. Don't write them off because they see this issue a little differently than you do.

 

If it's all about ecllesiastical separation, how does this apply to a para-church ministry like ProTeens? They are not a church.

Has MacArthur had Hayford in to speak at his church? or, has he just said some nice things about him? Does his church or he personally cooperate with him? Who are we to judge his "aquaintance" or for that matter "friendship" with Hayford?

It's almost like reading the tabloids. Can you see it?—A grainy black and white picture of MacArthur and Hayford lounging' next to a pool in their bermuda shorts, bare-chested, and sipping non-alcholic brew.

Just look at all of the stuff in that one photo that would warrant an IMMEDIATE separation from him. Let's list them, shall we?

1. Shorts (I'm assuming they're above the knee)
2. No shirt (I'm assuming they are involved in mixed-bathing).
3. I would assume there are scantily clad women (even though the photo doesn't show any).
4. non-alcholdic brew (another black and white issue!)
5. And of course: Associating with Hayford.

Did I leave anything out? About the only thing that doesn't fit into the Black and White only category is the picture because it has shades of gray.

Witch hunt.

 

Ah, phooey. I forgot one on my list of separation. How did I not see it!?

6. MUSIC! Yeah, I know. You're wondering how I can tell this from this picture. Well, let's just say that I can easily deduce from all of the other worldliness going on that there is some ROCK (CCM) music playing in the background. Why else would these men be doing what they are doing?

I think I've almost convinced myself to separate from MacArthur after all.

 

Now you done it ... Gone and opened a great big can of worms ... ... I think, in essence, it applies the same, but there are differences. I have problems with the whole para-church deal to begin with.

Hayford has had MacArthur to speak at his church and they have spoken in cooperation and approval at several different places, along with a number of other problemmatic men such as Hybels, Greg Laurie, Luis Palau (I believe), etc.

That too.

MacArthur has personally cooperated with Hayford.

Fellow members of the body of Christ with a vested interest in doctrinal and practical purity. In fact, to fail to judge this matter would be an abdication of our responsibilities given in Scripture.

No even remotely similar.

Not at all. Are you not even willing to take a critical look from the viewpoint of Scripture? Your approach smacks so much of the anti-fundamentalist attitudes that so many have. YOu act like any spiritual discernment is of the devil and should be resisted at all costs. Whether you admit it or not, there are biblical issues at stake that need to be given serious thought. The old tired complaints you are lodging are just as bad as the old tired foolishness that many on the other side list (such as your mock list of separable offenses). Both are equally wrong.

 

I am a fundamentalist and have been part of fundamental, independent, baptist church all my life. I went to a Bible College (one that is, by the way, a para-church ministry) that is fundamental. I intend on remaining a fundamentalist.

I have serious grievances with fundamental ism however. The biggest is sloppy exegesis. This whole matter of separation is one that I am in stark disagreement with many (including yourself).

Let me quote from another source:

I realize that there are those who will hang on to a hyper-biblical view of separation till their dying day. I don't think it should go unchallenged.

I know that you are convinced in your heart about this issue. I too was "reared" this way for many years. I remember coming home during the summers of my college years and BLASTING away. It wasn't until I was confronted with expository teaching on this issue that I changed my mind.

 

So you are saying that cooperating with someone is more than having them speak at your church/conference, but also speaking at theirs.

I'm sure this has been covered before, but what have you to say about Paul speaking in Synagogues.

I'm quite confident that JMac has shown integrity with the truth and the gospel when he has spoken in other churches. Nobody doubts that.

If I were invited to speak in the Mormon Tabernacle and they gave me freedom to speak on whatever I wanted, then I would go! GO PROCLAIM THE TRUTH. The fear of man (in this case, what other fundamentalists would think or say) is paralyzing. I could care less what you think of me or anyone else for that matter if I had the opportunity to proclaim the unadulterated gospel to men and women who are in a captive setting. Is it worth you separating from me? YES!

I'll not stand before God and have Dr. Bob, Rod Bell, Bumpus, Herbster, Hay, or Hamrick for that matter standing behind me, approving of me, interceding on my behalf.

 

Am I going to this conference?

No way!

Reason:

Just look at this thread.

 

I completely agree. Was reading McLaughlan's Authentic Fundamentalism this morning over breakfast at the local diner I frequent here (in order to have a face in the community ... people know me as "the preacher"). He commented on the discontinuity between a high view of inspiration and bad preaching that comes from it.

But having said that, I think your treatment of 2 Thess 3 is a case in point. You have sloppily exegeted the Scripture in order to support your position. 2 Thess 3 does refer to disorderliness. But you indicate an unwillingness to call it disobedience. But that is exactly what Paul called it in v. 14 and addresses his comments to the things "in this letter." In fact, the issue of laziness is separated from the command to separate by a general exhortation indicating a change in subject to the close of the letter. LImiting the failure to obey to laziness is very convenient for you, but is questionable exegesis.

Furthermore, your approach indicates one of the great weaknesses typical of much of both fundamental and evangelical preaching. It reveals an inability or unwillingness to take the truth of Scripture and apply it in a cultural context. The issue may well be laziness in Paul's mind because that is what he was talking about. (He may indeed have already broadened it as the context would indicate by v. 13 which may have little to do wiht laziness "this letter" whihc indicates Paul's thinking is broader than simply the issue of laziness). But you have failed to find the cultural application of Paul's first century exhortation. What is the principle involved and how do we apply it? That is what I have done and you have failed to do. This is the same principle used in 1 Cor 5, and other places. The principle is the same; the occasioning incident is different. That clearly tells us that the principle does not apply to simply laziness. If it did, how would he use the same principle to speak of immorality, false teaching, etc.? The issue is clearly one of disobedience, laziness being the current occasion.

That is inconceivable to me because it is the expository studying and preaching of Scripture (both personal as well as listening to others) that has moved me past the mindless repetition of this truth into the whole-hearted commitment to it. I cannot see how expository preaching has made one less willing to contend for purity in doctrine and practice. I can't understand how expository preaching has made us more willing to tolerate disobedience.

The quotation you give (your source is unfortunately not cited) rightly says that all disobedience is not treated the same. That is so patently obvious. I don't know of anyone, including hyper separatists, who disagree with that.

Absolutely. That is undeniable. Joining hands in cooperation is wrong, regardless of hte location.

I am preaching through Acts currently. There are several issues involved. First, in most of hte synagogues it is likely that there were true worshippers of God who, when hearing of Christ from Paul, converted to Christianity. Remember it was a time of transition not similar to today's culture (a little tad of exegesis that people like to overlook). SEcond, Paul confronted them about the truth adn used Scripture as his base. He was clearly not cooperating with them.

I do, on the basis of his speaking at Hayford's church. He failed to expose the error of charismatism on that occasion. As a result he was invited to speak at another charismatic group. Had MacArthru properly handled his occasion at Hayford's there would have been no reason for the second group to give him an invitation. That is not to speak for other occasions. I am sure on some of them, MacArthur ahs stood firm. I have heard him on Larry King and been thankful for his testimony. That does not excuse him on other issues.

I think there is more at stake. Why in the world would a someone such as a mormon invite an evangelical to speak? To me, that says that the evangelical has not taken a firm public stand. There is no way I would invite someone here who did not agree with me. I think we overlook that issue. Such actions can send a wrong message, as MacArthur did, and lead others into error.

It can also be very helpful in keeping us on the right road. The biblical idea is accountability. We all need it.

Would it be unadulterated? I hardly think so. It would be unethical for you to go as a guest and blast the inviting body without their prior knowledge. If a Mormon group wants me to talk about differences, then that is one thing. If they invite to celebrate and worship with them (as Hayford did MacArthur), that is something completely different.

Very true ... but you will stand before God to answer for whether you obeyed his word, even in the face of temptation to pragmatism. Uzzah thought he was doing a noble thing and a good thing; God killed him. You see our judgment of noble and good really means nothing. When God says to separate from certain people, he does not need your own opinion about what he really meant. He wants obedience. And to fail in such a task is like the sin of witchcraft and idolatry.