New Youth Conference for fundamentalist!

[J Mac Jr]

Thank you Dr. Bob.
Everyone has their opinion (yes, OPINION) on J Mac, Holland, Grace Community, Masters College and Seminary. The fact is, Frank Hamrick is not stupid. He is well aware of what he is doing. Let's be grateful that a man who has fought and stood for truth for 50 years is continuing to do so. We do believe in the priesthood of the believer, right? He can do whatever he wants to with the ministry that God has given him oversight of. If you don't want to come, don't come. If want want to hear the glory and majesty of God proclaimed and exalted, come. If you think tha Hamrick is in sin, at least have the guts to call and confront a sinning brother.
Having said all that, I will be there with bells on.

 

[4His_glory]

Good point Dr. Bob. John Mac is very much fundamental, and also a sepratist, obviously though not to the degree that others would like.

He has written against some the heretical theologies out there such as the Charasmatic movemnet. He is preaching through as series called the "Bible Driven Church" as a confrontation to the "Purpose Driven" methodology that Rick Warren teaches. I would say this is pretty confrontational and shows a spirit of sepratisim. How can any one deny this?

My question is what is the fear? What are older fundamentalist leaders afaid that younger ones like myself will do if we are blessed by teaching of John Mac, or his youth pastor at this particular conferance? Do they doubt that we are able to discern truth from error? Are they afraid that we will some how reject the principle of separation? I consider myself a strong sepratist, and I am proud of my "Fundamentalist heritage", but I do not see the problem of receiving instruction from some one like John Mac or his associates when it is biblical.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Bob, with due respect to you, my friend, historically fundamentalism has been marked by separation, though not unanimity on who we separate from (i.e., not the nth degree, as you put it). Even a die hard old timer such as McCune acknowedges the place of discernment on the matter of separation. Moderate and modified fundamentalists are not fundamentalists by the historic usage of the term. They are conservative evangelicals. The binary divisions of yesteryear no longer work in teh evolving theological world. I can't see that MacArthur is not a fundamentalist in the historic use of the term since he cooperates and encourages men who are disobedient to Scripture, making himself disobedient to SCripture.

I enjoy the ministry of MacArthur very much. I like his commentaries for homiletical material; I like his books; I like to hear him preach. I think he has taken a strong stand in some difficult times. But he is, sadly, not a historic fundamentalist, IMO.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Agree to disagree. Would recommend George Dollar's tome on History of Fundamentalism. You will see where history bears out my side.

The only "separation" issue was from modernism/liberalism. All else is modern phenomena, really small segments of fundamentalism separating from each other!

 

[Pastor Larry]

The only "separation" issue was from modernism/liberalism.

Don't you think this was because the landscape was so much less crowded? Back then, you were either Christian or liberal (to borrow from Machen). But over the years, it seems to me, theology morphed into various streams, necessitating a different approach to separation. Admittedly it is a hard subject and there is no one perfectly consistent on it. I just think we need to wrestle some more with the application of hte biblical texts on this subject. I think that personalities too often overrule.

I have read some of Dollar's book. Perhaps one day I will get around to the whole thing.

 

[Greg Linscott]

From the estimable Dr. Dollar:

There is a continuing drift downward; many, perhaps most, organizations are in motion, some are hesitating, and a few seem firmly fixed. There is no stable position between militant, vigilant Fundamentalism and New Evangelicalism, which, indeed may itself be a way station to the more overt forms of apostasy. The basis of this classification is militancy of opposition to all forms of compromise with apostasy, not primarily other identifying features of historic Fundamentalism…

A History of Fundamentalism in America, p. 288

Dr. Bob,

It would seem that even Dr. Dollar is arguing that in 1973, the moderate and modifieds are on a course that is leading them away from their Fundamentalist moorings. To argue that Dollar would have seen MacArthur as a Fundamentalist (at least in the true, "militant" position Dollar holds to) is erroneous. It ignores the events that have taken place in the 30+ years since Dollar wrote the book. If anything, he warns (p.276) against "crusading Calvinists" who are taking Fundamentalism away from its moorings, of which I am sure if he were writing today, he would have to consider the influence of MacArthur and Piper, for example.

 

[Sponge Bob]

Thought you all might be interested in this:

http://weblog.wordcentered.org/archives/2005/02/01/godfocused_conference.php

 

[Dr. Bob]

They may be on a course away from fundamentalist moorings, but they are still fundamentalists. Just because they don't have a bloody sword does not mean they have gone over "to the dark side".

We through around terms like "neo" way too easily. Mac and Piper and Falwell are fundamentalists, but certainly NOT militant separatist fundamentalists. That is good (that their core belief system is sound) and bad (that they cannot see the problem in compromise with error).

I am a fundamentalist, but not like hyles and the kjvo and the legalists and the easy-believists who have usurped the term (ifbXtreme).

And thankfully so.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Originally posted by Sponge Bob:
Thought you all might be interested in this:

What a fabulous read! To entice those that would move past it without reading, here is a paragraph:

First, there is, in my mind, an illogical assumption that speaking in any given venue automatically necessitates a wholehearted endorsement of any given speaker at the same venue. The notion that I wholeheartedly endorse Holland (or Ollila and Hamrick for that matter) just because I am speaking where he is speaking is, to put it bluntly, simplistic. Nor do I expect them to completely endorse me.

This mindset which dominates the thinking of many Fundamentalists is nowhere to be found in history. It is parochial in time. Our views of the practical applications of the doctrine of separation are so disproportionately influenced by our century, our era, and our circles . . .

 

[Pastor Larry]

Interesting letter to be sure ... But it sounds like a "They did it too" defense. I am sure we would all question the validity of such a thing. I think we err by not knowing history. I also think we err by investing too much authority in history. I am not suggesting Bixby is right or wrong about his position. But a "they did it too" rationale leans towards pragmatism. As a whole, I am a whole lot more in line with the ideas that Bixby puts forth than with the typical caricature (and too often reality) of fundamentalism.

I think the issue of endorsement by sharing a platform is worthy of more thought. Visibility (of both speaker and platform) is certainly a factor. In fact, most probably would not recognize the Rick Holland and would have no issue. It is the more visible that they have an issue with. Right or wrong? That's for discussion. But I think the fallacy of such an opinion of endorsement was given a loud voice by MacArthur himself when, after speaking for Hayford at his church, the charismatic businessmen's luncheon got the idea that MacArthur was on their side, and invited him to speak. To Mac's credit, he gave them a biblical view of hte Spirit. It is not to his credit that he gave them room for doubt to begin with.

I simply think, as I have said, we need much critical thinking thoroughly immersed in biblical truth to make headway. I don't think this conference is a big deal.

One last comment about Bob and the "course away" comment. I think the important thing is direction. For those headed our direction, I think we associate, cooperate, and help. For those moving away, we warn, expose, and repudiate (in varying degrees of course). To paraphrase my (and his) professor, Look where their feet are pointed.

 

[J Mac Jr]

Well said, Dr. Bob, Pastor Bob and Sponge Bob.

 

[J Mac Jr]

Pastor Larry wrote:
I think we err by not knowing history. I also think we err by investing too much authority in history. I am not suggesting Bixby is right or wrong about his position.

Let me guess Pastor Larry, your a "Biblicist"- One who has a problem with both sides of every argument and fortunately has found the perfect balance between the two.

 

[Sponge Bob]

So Pastor Larry, where are your feet pointed? Do you read MacArthur's books? Do you listen to his sermons (via tape or online)? Is he influencing you in any way? Are you making an implication that ProTeens' feet are shifting to the left?

I have spoken with Dr. Hamrick and he made it abundantly clear that his direction has not changed. He said that he believes Rick has a biblical philosophy of youth ministry. In addition Dr. Hamrick said he thinks our guys (meaning those in fundamentalist circles) could benefit from hearing him.

What's the difference between handing out someone's tapes or requiring them to read a book versus having them speak in person? After all, Holland isn't speaking on church polity (not that I would necesarily disagree with them totally). I don't think that ProTeens is giving a wholesale endorsement of Grace Community's ministry.

Pastor Larry, have you contacted ProTeens to see what they have to say? If not, I would recommend you do so to allow them to make a defense for themselves.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Let me guess Pastor Larry, your a "Biblicist"- One who has a problem with both sides of every argument and fortunately has found the perfect balance between the two.

Of course not. That would be a foolish statement for anyone to make. Unfortunately, there are some on the other side who seem unwilling to even think about the points being made. I am always amazed by people who seem not to be giving this much thought, on both sides. I certainly don't have all the answers. I wish people like you were asking more questions though.

 

[Pastor Larry]

So Pastor Larry, where are your feet pointed?

As I said a few pages ago, I am a died in the wool fundementalist separatist, though probably not what one would traditionally think of when someone says that.

Do you read MacArthur's books? Do you listen to his sermons (via tape or online)? Is he influencing you in any way?

Already answered this one too, on this same page no less ... I said I enjoy the ministry of MacArthur very much. I like his commentaries for homiletical material; I like his books; I like to hear him preach. I think he has taken a strong stand in some difficult times. But he is, sadly, not a historic fundamentalist, IMO.

Are you making an implication that ProTeens' feet are shifting to the left?

Nope ...

I have spoken with Dr. Hamrick and he made it abundantly clear that his direction has not changed. He said that he believes Rick has a biblical philosophy of youth ministry. In addition Dr. Hamrick said he thinks our guys (meaning those in fundamentalist circles) could benefit from hearing him.

That's fine with me.

What's the difference between handing out someone's tapes or requiring them to read a book versus having them speak in person?

Finally, we get to a good question that I haven't answered yet ... I think this is a question worthy of discussion. I think one of the differences is the ability to critically interact and state disclaimers. I think there is a huge difference between having someone in person and reading someone's books. It is just a completely different world. I can recommend a student read Barth's theology, but I would never have him in to speak (were it another time and place). There is a level of endorsement in personal appearances that does not exist in the pages of a book.

After all, Holland isn't speaking on church polity

Just as a side note, while I believe GCC is wrong on polity, this is way near the bottom of the list of concerns. In fact, it doesn't even make the list.

Pastor Larry, have you contacted ProTeens to see what they have to say? If not, I would recommend you do so to allow them to make a defense for themselves.

I haven't contacted them because I don't care one way or the other. I have nothing to do with Pro-Teens. I have talked to Hamrick in years past (going back more than 10 years ago). I have never used any of the ProTeens material since the book of Remembrance more than 20 years ago (though I did see a spare sheet recently). I do have his Leadership Training Course which I think is pretty good stuff. But this conference is of really no concern to me. As I have said several times, I just don't think it matters. I am a little concerned about it (with heavy emphasis on the "little" and little emphasis on the "concerned").

 

[Siegfried]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
One last comment about Bob and the "course away" comment. I think the important thing is direction. For those headed our direction, I think we associate, cooperate, and help. For those moving away, we warn, expose, and repudiate (in varying degrees of course). To paraphrase my (and his) professor, Look where their feet are pointed.

That is a challenging concept. I will have to consider this with much prayer and wisdom-seeking, but if I were to start practicing it right now, I'm afraid I would have to start aggressively warning, exposing, and repudiating a whole bunch of people in the fundamentalist churches and institutions in which I've grown up. Maybe that's what I need to do.

Thankfully, John MacArthur has taken care of just about all the charismatic and church growth movement, so at least I don't have to carry that part of the load on my own.

 

[Siegfried]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />What's the difference between handing out someone's tapes or requiring them to read a book versus having them speak in person?

Finally, we get to a good question that I haven't answered yet ... I think this is a question worthy of discussion. I think one of the differences is the ability to critically interact and state disclaimers. I think there is a huge difference between having someone in person and reading someone's books. It is just a completely different world. I can recommend a student read Barth's theology, but I would never have him in to speak (were it another time and place). There is a level of endorsement in personal appearances that does not exist in the pages of a book.
</font>[/QUOTE]But it's also true that one of the benefits of this conference structure is that there will be plenty of opportunities to ask Rick Holland about any aspects of his ministry that people find questionable and how they fit with a "God focused" youth ministry. People will have an opportunity to probe and find out if he can defend his choices biblically. Those who lob mortar rounds from a distance won't.

 

[Pastor Larry]

That is a challenging concept. I will have to consider this with much prayer and wisdom-seeking, but if I were to start practicing it right now, I'm afraid I would have to start aggressively warning, exposing, and repudiating a whole bunch of people in the fundamentalist churches and institutions in which I've grown up.

The word "aggressively" caught my attention. I think our "aggressiveness" depends on a number of factors including the topic, the visibility of both parties, the influence, etc. For instance, I don't have to warn my people about the theology of Karl Barth. He has made major areas in serious issues; he is very visible in some circles; but he has no influence on people here under my teaching. I have mentioned MacArthur before, recommending some of his books, but cautioning against some things that he says and does. I think aggressiveness also has to do with the extent of the warning they have received. For instance, we can be very aggressive warning about Graham; For fifty years, people have tried to reason with him from Scripture to no avail. He is hardened in his position. With someone who is in Graham's spot of 60 years ago, just turning, we should be less agressive.

We should also be more aggressive with outright error (e.g., denial of sola fide) but not so much with other errors (e.g., amillennialism).

It is a tough course to navigate, and certainly individualistic to some degree. But when someone is headed in the right direction, let's put our arms around them and help them. When someone is headed the wrong direction, let's put our arms out to restrain them and if that fails, warn those who may fall under their influence.

As to your second point, I wonder how "questioning" one can be. In a conference on youth ministry, how free will one be to ask questions that don't relate to that topic. To me, that is the problem. The topics of concern are not primarily, IMO, with his youth philosophy, but they deal with a bigger picture.

One last comment about lobbing rounds from a distance. There are some things/positions that a person has made so abundantly clear that there is no question to be asked. For instance, Graham has gone down the road of ecumenical evangelism. 50 years ago, there may have been room to question him. Today, he has been so clear that there is no longer need for questioning.

 

[Pastor Larry]

I think another question worthy of thought in this matter is that when you bring a person such as Holland in, who is connected closely with a college, to do something on youth ministry, there is going to be the opportunity to promote the college. We have to ask, do we want the baggage that comes along with it in terms of promotion of a ministry such as a college? Or to put it bluntly, would Hamrick have a clear conscience if, as a result of this conference, youth pastors began to recommend their kids to the Master's College?

 

[Sponge Bob]

Do you really think that having Holland to speak will cause youth pastors to recommend Masters to their young people?

First of all, I don't have a problem with that if they did. Secondly, are these youth pastors not discerning enough to make that choice? Thirdly, if Ollila is speaking maybe they'll send their kids to Northland.

I'm quite confident that youth pastors are being as influenced by J. Mac's commentaries and books as they would be if they heard him LIVE and in stereo!

I have come to the conclusion that Rick is theologically sound. His philosophy of youth ministry is better than most I've read and is dead on. He makes some personal choices about music for his young people (GASP!). His fall from grace is that he works at Grace Community church. A church that is boldly proclaiming the gospel, with conviction combating worldliness (I'm not talking about dress standards. BTW-Holland has the BEST most biblical series on modesty that I've ever heard), and with grace ministering to thousands of people worldwide (do you get your free books?).

I have been to Grace four different times and I am confident that J. Mac is a humble servant going about his business serving the Lord.

I aplaud Frank Hamrick for this conference. I'm going and plan to rub shoulders with Rick and thank him for his ministry to me. I'm also going to commend him for his commitment to giving young people a passion for God.