New Youth Conference for fundamentalist!

Woohoo! Sign me up for the crusade! When you start taking action to shut down all the indy fundy mission boards, colleges/universities and camps, I'll be right there with ya'. That'll go over like a pregnant pole-vaulter.

 

The very existence of TRACS centers on theological interest, therefore it is incorrect to say that their focus is on academics alone, or that fellowship within its body does not rest at a theological level. Of course it does. The MacArthur/TRACS inconsistency that has been raised in this thread is legitimate. Positioning with TRACS is a clear deviation from the separatist stance, and most fundamentalist theologians agree. It is just one more demonstration that we suffer from a severe lack of identity.

The administrators of the fundamental colleges & seminaries met this week, discussing our state of disarray. I was with several men who attended the meetings, and there was much interest generated with the presentation of an idea by several of the seminarians to work toward the drafting of a fundamentalist confession that would clearly define biblical error, including the error of the KJVO position. At the last meeting, one of the more influential leaders announced his opposition to the idea, stating that each institution should delineate its own parameters. He represents a school that has operated pragmatically, and since clearly defined biblical parameters don't always fit effectively into the framework of institutional marketing strategies, his view was not surprising to most. I firmly believe the health of fundamentalism rests with godly men who will be willing to stand for Truth, regardless of the fallout or of the opinions of influential men. It will take godly men who are more committed to Truth than to any of their own personal interests or opinions.

 

What do you base this statement on?

Andy

 

No it's not, and no they don't. TRACS is an educational organization, not a theological or ecclesiastical one. There is no ecclesiastical tie stated or implied in any way. There is no "fellowship" or "cooperation." And that is what in inherent in the separation discussion. That issue doesn't indicate anything about a lack of identity.

 

Pastor Larry, this certainly isn't an issue I wish to debate, and I am sorry that I stirred within you a vehement spirit of defense about this issue. I just read through your comments on accreditation, and there are issues surrounding the process that I don't think you understand. I have been heavily involved in several accreditation pursuits, and there are still aspects that I don't even understand. Each accrediting body functions very differently, and the rules change for each. My guess is that you feel an obligation to defend those who are either seeking or have obtained TRACS accreditation, and I appreciate that more than you know. I wholeheartedly support two particular institutions that are in presently in pursuit, and I back their decision to do so. I don't, however, support the market-driven decision to act as if there has been no compromise to our separatist position or to act as though a wonderful Christian accrediting association has surfaced that offers no compromise. There are no accrediting bodies that exist that do not present fundamental Christian institutions with an element of risk and/or concession. I am of the belief that the educational demands of our world dictate that we go as far as we can with a clear conscience toward God and man, but that we move forward with a forthright spirit of honesty at every corner.

My statement about fundamental theologians comes from the fact that many of the fundamental seminaries with which I'm familiar have been unwilling to seek TRACS, and view a lack of accreditation or regional as a better choice. That is all a matter of opinion. It is not, however, a matter of opinion that TRACS has theological moorings. Their requirement to sign a doctrinal statement demonstrates that, and they have faced opposition in their pursuit of CHEA recognation because of those moorings. They've faced a long battle to become a viable player, and I am delighted they have reached recognition status. I won't, however, allow my personal feelings to cause me to sidestep the facts.

 

You didn't stir within me any vehement spirit of debate. I am long on the record as saying that I think accreditation is way overblown, both in the reasons for having it and in the reasons for not having it. And I feel no particular bent to defend or blame anyone on the issue. I honestly don't care. I think there are problems with regional accreditation and with TRACS, but they are not insurmountable and those problems, whatever they might be, pose no problem for biblical separation. It is a completely different issue.

My point is wholly about the erroneous notion that TRACS is some sort of theological or ecclesiastical cooperative union. It isn't. It is an organization for educational accreditation. That is what the C and S are included ... It is colleges and schools, and the object of the organization is to ensure their academic quality, financial stability, and student support services, and to promote the welfare, interests, and development of quality Christian postsecondary institutions whose mission is characterized by a distinctively Christian orientation. While TRACS encourages each affiliated institution to develop its own distinctives, TRACS expects institutions to provide quality postsecondary education within the context of Christian values, with emphasis on high academic standards, integrity, practical application, and spiritual development. That is from their accreditation handbook. We can clearly see that the purpose of accreditation is not to join hands in common cause, but to merely provide a review process so that those outside can have independent verification of education and institutional quality.

IMO, we need to understand more about ecclesiastical separation so that this type of confusion you are engendering does not continue. We might say that accreditation has problems or does not. But I don't think we can rightly say that it is an infringement on ecclesiastical separation as a fundamentalist. It would be similar to a professor being a member of ETS. It is an organization with a specific purpose that does not infringe on ecclesiastical separation.

 

On this we can certainly agree, there exists an incredible need for a better understanding of ecclesiastical separation. Though I've had much training in these matters and have lived through a generational transition of fundamentalism that you have not, I still stand in great need of this understanding myself. Unfortunately, fundamentalism suffers from many folks who do not come to the table as learners, but as self-assured proclaimers.

In regard to TRACS, there are solid, bright-minded, Word-filled fundamentalist theologians, who have more training than either of us, standing on both sides of this issue. I hope that this fact alone will cause us to give heed to how confidently we state our positions and how confidently we rest in our own understanding. Humility demands that we do nothing other, and this would be true for every issue that comes across this board that is not explicitly outlined in Scripture. We may hold opinions that others are "engendering confusion that should not continue," but emotionally-charged accusations accomplish nothing other than to make folks thank the Lord they've been rescued from us. That is what is most grievous.

 

Pastor Larry, I sincerely want to have a proper biblically-based view of ecclesiastical separation, so I pose this question to you sincerely. What would be different about the following situation that would exempt it from the separation application you would apply to MacArthur: Jack Hayford is the keynote speaker at the TRACS annual meeting, where he gives a message on the charismatic movement, making a plea for the TRACS membership schools to incorporate the free working of the spirit into their ministries. Several school representatives are randomly asked to come to the pulpit to pray. There is another convention meeting where Falwell is the keynote speaker, presenting a message not relating to academics as the leadership from the member schools join together in "worship and prayer." Just curious about your thinking. This is one of the reasons why I believe it is a deviation from our original position. I'm not saying positioning with TRACS shouldn't be done, I'm just saying I believe we would have condemned others for doing this if we hadn't found ourselves culturally and educationally pushed into the "need" for this accreditation.

 

One of the great purposes of this message board is that we can debate and we can learn.

Andy, last night I was thinking on this whole issue and I was wondering how you look at Dr. Bob "cooperating" with J. Mac, Mac Lucado, Father Michael Manning, and Bishop Melvin Talbert on Larry King?

I'm simply trying to find out what your scope of ministry is. Maybe you can define what you think cooperating means.

Wouldn't it be equally wrong for you to say anything "nice" or something perceived as approving of J.Mac's ministry, as it would be for J.Mac to say something nice about Hayford?

 

What generation is this? What do you mean by this?

This grates on me to no end. I feel there is a great lack of critical thinking in fundamentalism broadly defined.

I certainly agree with all of this. As I said earlier, I fear there are many people on both sides who are not actually thinking about what is being said. Several years ago I wrestled through this on teh issue of ETS. I am not in ETS nor do I desire to be, but I know several fundamentalist professors who are. In my thought processes, I have concluded there is a distinction between church cooperation and educational affiliation. The educational affiliation is very broadly based and does not require the endorsement of another ministry position. I can't see how we can make the case that it is similar to the issues of biblical separation.

The TRACS meetings themselves may bring another issue into it worthy of thought. But it seems to me that we still need to recognize the purpose of the affiliation. For instance, BJU has long been a member of educational organizations in SC and various faculty members have held positions in those organizations. Those were never looked at as compromise. I can't see why membership in another educational organization would be any different.

Sponge Bob asked about Larry King's show ... My answer is that those are round table discussions, not matters of ecclesiastical cooperation. Again, I think understanding biblical separatism as concerning issues of ecclesiastical or ministerial cooperation is an entirely different matter than being on a round table discussion. It was very similar to what BJIII did more than 20 years ago when he went on Phil Donahue's show.

In the end, as I said before, separation issues are ultimately a matter of conscience. But we should not feel imposed upon to be challenged on specific points of our own position. I can grant a great deal more leeeway to MacArthur than many fundamentalists can. But I can't give him a free pass on these issues (of which Hayford is only one example of others).

 

Curious as to what you mean by this? Before responding, I will wait to hear.

 

If you look at many of the descriptions of "Young Fundamentalists" that have been bandied about on this board, I would fit within many of them. I probably will not be at this conference, because of my other obligations, and the distance. But I do appreciate Hamrick's philosophy very much, he is right on when it comes to the character of many IFB youth ministries and their failure to go beyond pseudo-Biblical behaviorism.

I have no problem with JMac as far as theology, definitely some differences on church polity and probably some folks he would feel comfortable hanging out with that I would not, but I don't see any issues that would require my separation from all aspects of his ministry, including but not limited to hearing a member of his staff speak. I don't understand how anyone who could read Charismatic Chaos and come to the conslusion that JMac doesn't stand for separation from such harmful false teaching. Perhaps he was not agressive in one or more particular instances, but I think you have to look at his ministry as a whole and what it is characterized by.

BTW Sponge Bob, sarcasm and the great tongue in cheek style you post in does not go over well here, I get pounded for it all the time. Just to let you know. I think its great.

I have heard plenty of very strong separated fundamentalists praise some of the content and philosophy of Rick Warren's book "Purpose Driven Church", and yet they do not endorse his whole ministry or philosophy en masse. I am not edumbicated enough on the context or content of JMAc's praise of Hayford, or what he said when he preached there to even analyze what his purpose or intent for going, or what things he sees as valuble. I have spoken to several charismatic folks that I have worked with, and they are much closer to me in doctrinal position that I would have thought. Some of the differences are very subtle. I could agree with many of the fundamental truths that they hold, it is much more a matter of practice, and theological focus than of foundational truth in some cases. There are ministries that I could never endorse, that I could take particular ministry ideas or philosophy from. As the old saying goes "even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while"

 

First of all, let me say that I am thankful for the dialogue. Furthermore, I can appreciate differing opinions even though I disagree.

I think (just like with the TRACS issue) that there are men I respect on both sides of the "MacArthur issue" For example some up at Detroit Seminary land on your side Larry whereas some at Calvary in Lansdale land on my side. You're obviously convinced that your are on the right side of the issue and I am convinced that I am on the right side of the issue. This is why I love the autonomy of the local church. What urks me is that a ministry like ProTeens chooses their side and people come out with gloves off.

I have heard (let me state that I do NOT have first hand knowledge) that during Heart Conf. this week at Northland that some of the "leaders" in fundamentalism are putting their heads together on this. I'm not necessarily opposed to this (this is what happened with the whole KJV thing). I'm not sure what I think of this. We claim to be independent but it seems that we are more bound than the dreaded Southern Baptists. Does not ProTeens have the liberty to function in an area such as this without getting blasted?

A side note: What great publicity for the conference! I'm sure ProTeens didn't invite Rick for this reason, but they've sent out one mailer and look at the BUZZZZ!

Question: I know you're not an oracle, but do you think many guys from "our circles" will attend this conference? or do you think it will flop?

 

Superdave. I realize my style can be somewhat "inflamatory" and I need to be cautious in my sarcasm. However, I don't plan on giving myself a wedgie, starching my shirt, and cinching up my tie before I post either.

I'm not sure how I classify myself. I've never really thought about it. At home and in my personal life I think I have pretty "strict" standards. For example, I don't cuss unless something really hurts, I don't go to the theater unless it's an IMAX, and I don't personally have any body piercings.

I LOVE expository teaching that focuses on God. I believe in progressive sanctification, I'm calvanistic, and I love spicy mexican food.

 

Pastor Larry said-
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.
I like your honesty in admitting that J Mac got it right on one occasion. You also admitted in this e-mail that J mac is guilty of ONE lapse in judgment. I pray I never screw up then get it right. Because the one screw up apparently does enough damage to negate anything I may do right in the future.
Good night! cut the guy some slack. He made one mistake (not neccesarily my opinion) No one on the planet, with the possible exception of Pastor Larry has been perfect in their decision making. Hasn't he made it abundantly clear where he (J Mac) stands in reference to charasmatic doctrine? Oh, but wait, there was that one time...

 

I feel the same way. I regret that some have seemingly taken things as worse than they are intended. But ... this is a text based discussion and things are misunderstood.

I agree and disagree. I think ProTeens can make whatever choice they want. I don't think they hvae a right to be unquestioned about it. Some probably get nasty and call names and the like. I don't think we should. Let's just state the facts and discuss the issues. I would be uncomfortable doing what Frank is doing. But that's me. I rarely go to fundamentalist conferences. There is just nothing I want to hear.

To some degree. I was lamentin recently with a college vice president that we decry the popedom of old but have set up their own. I am thankful that while I have many connections and friends in high places, I minister in a place where I can do my own thing.

I wondered this. I honestly have no earthly idea. I am so far out of the proteens circle that I have no clue whatsoever. I don't know what a good number would be for attendance. I will be curious to find out. LEt us know.

You would probably be more confortable here than you know ... just so long as you go easy on the spices. I like mine a little more mild, but I know some great Mexican places ... the real kind rather than the Americanized chains. They aren't far from here.

 

It sounds like this conference is for you then. That is, unless you don't think a "God-focused" philosophy is what you want to hear.

I'm pretty confident this conference is NOT about ProTeens. As I look at the topics I think it's fair for ProTeens to call this "A Different Kind of Conference." I don't know of any other youth conferences with this focus.

Yesterday I saw a brochure for a youth conference that Rick Warren is putting on. It's the same old: "What Youth Pastor's Wives Wish Their Husbands Knew" "How To Run An Effective Youth Activity."

I think there's a place for those kind of workshops, but it looks like ProTeens has NAILED it! All of that other stuff is white noise compared to zeroing in on God. I hope THOUSANDS of young men go to this conference and are challenged from God's Word from godly men (ALL FIVE OF THEM!).

 

Larry basically answered your first question already.

As far as scope of ministry or defining cooperation is concerned, that is a more difficult question. I think the answer is potentially different depending on whether you are a church, a camp, an educational institution, a publisher, or an individual. You will have different standards as an educational institution for your religious activities than what you may have for your non-religious educational activities. For example, BJU would never have Pat Robertson speak in chapel but they did allow him to speak to the students when he was running for president and came in as a Republican candidate. I see that difference very clearly. BJU makes other distinctions in that same realm that I don’t see as clearly. For example, they will have non-fundamentalists such as Janet Parshall speak at their home school conferences. She wasn’t there to preach but I was still somewhat uneasy about it. The issues today are much more complex than they were back in previous generations. I have not sat down to think through all these particular issues to come up with a comprehensive Theology of Separation. It would be a worthwhile exercise, though.

I believe I can say something nice about MacAurhur or Hayford without compromising Biblical principles of separation. The Bible itself does it in the messages to the churches in Revelation.

The issues regarding the TRACS conferences are also worth discussing. I don’t know the nature of these conferences or the extent to which member institutions are expected to participate. I could see situations come up where one would need the wisdom of a Daniel to avoid compromising actions, though.

Andy

 

FYI, I started a new thread to discuss the validity this statement that appears on the Godfocused website:

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/48/750.html

Andy

 

I don't mind the "leaders" putting their heads together on these issues, just as long as the fundamental pastors, not educators, end up being the key players. This kind of "brain burning" just took place at the beginning of this week with the annual AACC&S meeting hosted at BJU. Stratton (AACC&S pres. or v.p) invited Doran, Davey and Bauder to be the keynote speakers, and I liked the idea these guys presented to have pastors work together in drafting a confessional. From what I hear, they provided a gracious reminder that we must move away from allowing any institution to be seen as the compass for fundamentalism. Fortunately, there is a steady move away from this kind of positioning, and even in Greenville, there are several key fundamental pastors who are actively moving their churches away from functioning as an "arm of BJU." The right men are in place to accomplish this, because they are solid fundamental theologians who don't have a personal bias against BJU, just a bias toward having things done biblically. When an institution is seen as a compass, the tendency will exist to elevate the standards and functioning of that institution in level with the Bible, and this is exactly what has happened.