New Youth Conference for fundamentalist!

[HappyG]

Aefting,

Rick Holland is living in unrepentant sin and persistent worldliness?

This is a youth pastor too thousands. A man who is viewed by the youth, their parents, his co-workers, his boss(John MacArthur)as a man of God. He wakes up in the morning prays, reads his Bible, asks God for direction in his life and ministry, stumbles at times, repents and keeps on going. He works long hours to do a job worthy of hearing "well done" good and faithful servant.

And if you walked into his office and said, "You are stubbornly disobedient and living in persistent sin." He would probably say you are right. Sometimes I am proud and seek man's glory more than Gods and I often feel stubbornly disobedient in that area. Or he might say you are right I struggle with my thought life and sometimes I feel stubbornly disobedient in that area. I'm sure he wouldn't deny his own sinfulness and worldliness.

But then you would inform him that isn't what you are talking about. You would then inform him that his "music standards" are wrong. Or his boss spoke at a particular church that isn't in total agreement with your doctrinal position therefore by proxy he is living in stubborn disobedience and sin.

Rick would smile and feel alot better about himself at that point! I promise you.

And if Rick is in stubborn disobedience, the rest of the church people who attend are the same, and the people who go to the seminary and school, and the people who read JM's books and the people who listen to his radio show, and the people who use JM's commentaries, and the list goes on.

Until just the few, the right ones remain! Well, if that is the way you want to think. God bless you, you certainly can think that way.

But I will let you know, God is doing some amazing things in many ministries around the world that you would say are composed of a bunch of people living in persistent sin and stubborn disobedience!

 

[ForHisGlory15]

HappyG, I read the posts by Aefting and can't find where he said that Holland is "stubbornly disobedient and living in persistent sin."

 

[Sponge Bob]

Fundamentalism is not just separation from apostasy. It is also separation from worldliness and disobedient brethern. Rick Holland falls short in these last two categories, regardless of what he thinks of the term.

 

[superdave]

If I was stubbornly disobedient to Scripture or persistent in unrepentant worldliness, then you would have to separate from me. The issue is not, have I ever sinned or has Rick Holland ever sinned or have you ever sinned. This issue is unrepentant sin or persistent worldliness. Do we have to make these things so explicit every time we talk about them?

This was a further clarification of the point, Thats how I read it too Sponge Bob, unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, the only evidence that Jmac and Holland are not fundamentalists is they use *gasp* contemporary music in the youth group, and he works for Jmac who once preached at Hayford's church and didn't launch WWIII when he did so, I like their chances with the jury to be honest. There is not any evidence of a consistent practice of consorting with false teachers or heretics for the purpose of unified ministry, nor is there evidence of unbiblical practices or theology. What am I missing?

Lets see, the 6 degrees of Jmac again, and one example of a non-Biblical standard being used as a litmus test. Hmmmm, maybe I'm not really a fundamentalist, after all, There is this word of faith teacher in Detroit who once spoke at Detroit World Outreach and was heard by a woman whose brother saw me walking into Tim Horton's for a men's Bible study last thursday and commented that I was carrying my Sword in my hand! (although it was the version of the Sword that has the mark of the beast on the cover, the Evil and pernicious NIV) Would that constitute unity with error? OK enough illustrating absurdity with absurdity, we have gotten way way off track here.

 

[Daniel David]

Actually Larry, I am not confused at all. Had Johnny lived in the 20s, Machen would have welcomed him.

The fact that you don't simply means you have added to the original definition, which has been my point.

 

[ForHisGlory15]

Originally posted by Sponge Bob:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Fundamentalism is not just separation from apostasy. It is also separation from worldliness and disobedient brethern. Rick Holland falls short in these last two categories, regardless of what he thinks of the term.

</font>[/QUOTE]I still don't see how Aefting's post accuses Holland of being "stubbornly disobedient and living in persistent sin." The "disobedient brethren" in the above sentence refers to those Holland is to separate from, not Holland. I also don't read anything about "living in persistent sin."

 

[HappyG]

ForHisGlory15,

So let me get this straight. Now we are saying that Holland isn't stubbornly disobedient and living in persistent sin.

But the people that he should have separated from are because they don't have "their" theology isn't inline with "my" theology not in the essentials but the non-essentials? or their music is different than mine? or dress standards are different? But Hollands association with them isn't "persistent sin." The other people are the problem...or should we call them the sinners.

Great, I think we are starting to agree. Holland is not doing anything wrong when he works for a boss who preaches or participates with people that don't agree with every theological detail to n'th degree or when he has music that is a little more 21'st century than 18'th century.

So what is the problem with him speaking at this conference?

 

[aefting]

I don't wholesale separate from someone over their music. You can try all you want to define a right and wrong line in music, but it will not be biblically based. I'm NOT arguing that music is amoral. I'm simply saying I cannot define where the line is for music that is and music that is not worldly. Therefore, I don't separate over it.

I agree that that line can be difficult to determine and I would not separate over the use of “conservative” CCM. There is, however, music that obviously crosses that line and is designed to mimic the anti-God style of the rock culture. I will separate over the use of that kind of music. I believe what they do at GCC crosses that line.

The other arguments made by Larry about JMac's (even though ProTeens is having Rick) associations don't come close to convincing me.

That’s fine but you said that no one even laid out any evidence. The evidence has been presented, you just don't agree with the conclusions.

Andy

 

[aefting]

I will try to respond to HappyG and Superdave when I get the chance. Right now I need to give my son a bath, get ready to paint our girls room, and figure out our new digital camera.

Andy

 

[Greg Linscott]

Andy- there are greater things at stake than baths and paint!

Okay, maybe not...

 

[Sponge Bob]

I agree that that line can be difficult to determine and I would not separate over the use of “conservative” CCM. There is, however, music that obviously crosses that line and is designed to mimic the anti-God style of the rock culture. I will separate over the use of that kind of music. I believe what they do at GCC crosses that line.

Andy, you can go on ahead and define where the line is. In fact, I define the line too. HOWEVER, I define it for myself and my family. You are defining it for every other person and ministry. You haven't stated where that line is, but you imply that you know where it is simply by the fact that you have determined Grace Communities youth group to be over "that" line.

I don't personally see myself playing that style of music for my own edification or for my family's, but I'm not about to separate over something that is NOT black and white.

Are you saying Andy that Rick Holland is sinning by having that kind of music in his ministry?

 

[ForHisGlory15]

I can't speak for anyone else, but I want it to be clear that I do not have any issue with Holland as a man. My thoughts about him is that he is a very godly young man who greatly loves the Lord. The entirety of my concern about his speaking at this conference surrounds the issue of integrity in standing firmly in a position that we espouse. Fundamentalism involves a marriage of belief, attitude and thought that defines those who accept its identification. When someone is not willing to join in that union (Holland), and in fact, finds disagreement with it, then I am going to naturally question the decision to bring him in as a speaker. ProTeens DOES identify itself as a fundamentalist organization, and if they don't want to carry that i.d. anymore, I would have respect for that kind of decision even if I disagree with it. I've mentioned before that I think it's totally unnecessary for a fundamentalist to talk in terms of "separation" as it relates to MacArthur, because we can't separate from something that isn't joined. He moved away from the fundamentalist position a long time ago, and refers to himself as a conservative evangelical. This is NOT an issue about their music. This is NOT a question about their love for God. This is NOT an issue about "stubborn disobedience and persistent sin." They are my dear brothers in Christ, not my enemies, and I am very concerned that my rhetoric surrounding this issue upholds these men in love and respect. The fact is, they have chosen to identify themselves with a group that is called evangelical, a group that is different in its willingness to tolerate that which a fundamentalist would not. The same holds true with conservative Southern Baptists. They are my wonderful, godly brothers who are willing to tolerate that "one bad apple" in their organization, and my unwillingness to do that is what differentiates me as a fundamentalist. Sadly, fundamentalism has seen so much defection because it has been centered around taking pot shots at people over non-essentials and embracing people who defy essentials such as love and humility. I am a strong proponent of saving a fundamentalism that is worth saving because it is right, and eradicating the branches that are destroying us. Of course I am concerned that Holland is coming to speak at a fundamentalist conference! He is articulate, fascinating, and influential, and He represents something that we have done poorly. I just think this is the wrong way to fix our problems.

 

[HappyG]

ForHisGlory15,

I can hear in your response one very important concept that you understand. The younger generation struggles with "pot shots" over non-essentials. I respect that understanding.

But I walk away from what you said with the understanding that the type of fundamentalism that you are defending is built on "non-essentials" and "undefendables" that very godly young men who greatly love the Lord may or may not agree with. And if they don't agree, they are somewhat of a threat because if they are articulate, fascinating and influential but don't agree in every area of the non-essentials, they just might open up some peoples eyes to a world where people disagree on some of the "non-essentials" and "undefendables" but agree on the fundamentals. And if there eyes are open to that, we might have a hard time defending the undefendables and the defections might increase.

Is that a wrong conclusion based on what you said?

I don't envy the position of defending something that is at best non-essential and at worst undefendable.

Or when put like that is it really "essential", it is just tough to admit that non-essentials have become essentials within the fundamentalism you are describing.

 

[Pastor Larry]

But I walk away from what you said with the understanding that the type of fundamentalism that you are defending is built on "non-essentials" and "undefendables" that very godly young men who greatly love the Lord may or may not agree with.

How is JM's participation with "known and vital error" (to use what I think Spurgeon said) a "non-essential"? Scripture makes it clear that we can participate in the sins of others and that is the concern of the fundamentalist side on this issue. There are certainly issues that are "non-essential" that have become far too central in some parts of fundamentalism broadly speaking. But I can't see how we can possibly put this in that category.

 

[Sponge Bob]

ForHisGlory15,

I appreciate the spirit of your last post. I have an underlying difference from you. I don't believe that Scripture differentiates between fundamentalists and people such as Holland. You are saying that we have to separate from Holland because he does not identify with our "movement" or our "denomination."

I've thought about it a lot lately (obviously), and if someone wants to label me as a "fundamentalist", a "young fundamentalist", a "neo-conservative" or whatever, I don't really carae. If taking on the label of "fundamentalist" means that I can only associate and cooperate with others in that narrow circle, then count me out. If my ministry can be more effective with a different title, then so-be-it.

Let me be clear that I consider myself a fundamentalist, and there is obviously quite a bit of debate on boths sides about what constitutes a fundamentalist. I love the people in these tight little circles, and I think there is a lot of good dialogue which is necessary--much like the KJV battle a few years back.

 

[ForHisGlory15]

Originally posted by HappyG:
[QB] ForHisGlory15,

Is that a wrong conclusion based on what you said?

I don't envy the position of defending something that is at best non-essential and at worst undefendable.

Yes, that is a wrong conclusion, but I can see how you could come to that if you aren't deeply grounded in the theological and historic perspective of fundamentalism. It is a biblically defendable position, and it is not non-essential, or I would not stand so firmly on the belief. Without the presence of time and a true spirit to learn, however, its defense could never be properly and/or successfully borne on this venue, and time nor space is available. It's tough meat, and it takes lots of chewing. There are those who question why we even give such time to these issues when there is a lost and dying world out there that just needs God, and a Church who just needs to develop a passion for God. We give attention to it because God gives attention to it and tells us His desire is that we move beyond the milk. Paul's complaint against the Church was that they were leading lives dictated by their corrupt natures to such a degee that they couldn't handle his giving them anything more, and he was desperately trying to awaken them to their malnourishment. My concern about an articulate evangelical speaking at a fundamental conference has nothing to do with my fear that our position is not defensible. The Truth is never threatened by opposing viewpoints, even though there are fundamentalists who seem to sadly live in such fear. My concern lies in the fact that many who attend that conference are ones who not only haven't chewed through the meat of our position yet, but also possess a spirit of frustration with our position. That's a dangerous combination. And why haven't they chewed through the meat? I believe the main reason is that it's been presented and delivered so poorly, because the presentation has so often come from those who simply parrot whatever their pope-like leader has told them without any internalization or questioning of thought. I will not, however, allow a poor presentation to be confused with a poor position.

 

[HappyG]

ForHisGlory,

You spoke in alot of generalities on your last post that make nice sound bites but let's plug in the specifics of what you said to the current situation that we are talking about.

Are you saying that the "meat" of the word is "seperation" from good, godly, articulate, evangelical men such as Rick Holland because they have a style of music that is more 21'st century than 18'th century and they work for a boss who spoke for someone who didn't agree with "us" in every theological way?

And Paul's desire and ministry was built on the theme of getting people to the point where they recognized men such as Holland as people that need to be chastized and separated from? And the people who were able to grasp the concept were the people who had matured from milk to meat? These people had gone from being malnourished to nourished? Because they understood that the Rick Holland's of the day were dangerous? sinful? apostate? (not sure what word to use to describe him at this point)

Just trying to make sure I understand what being deeply grounded in historic fundamentalism is all about?

 

[Sponge Bob]

ForHisGlory,

According to the godfocused.org website, the target audience of this conference is primarily youth pastors and pastors. I would assume that this group of people (for the most part) would already have their undergrad work done. Are you saying that they are still eating milk? This is NOT a new converts conference.

Are you saying that you personally (having chewed on the meat) are discerning enough to go to this conference and not be swayed by someone who articulately communicates a godly youth philosophy? Like was stated earlier by another on the hyper separatist side of the fence: it's o.k. to get some post grad from Masters, but not undergrad because those poor young saps aren't discerning enough.

My primary hope is that our fundamentalist colleges will have the backbone to stand up on issues like this so there is an alternative for our "fundamental" youth groups. Otherwise, I wouldn't blame anyone for sending their kids to Masters. Hey, if Masters is good enough for some of our fundamental college professors to further their education, then it's good enough for me! (I will not give names, but some prominent men take courses there).

 

[HappyG]

Pastor Larry,

Just review for me what JM's participation in "known and vital error" was or is?

He spoke somewhere where someone didn't have it all together or may even have had it wrong in some area theologically? And by doing that MacArthur agrees with the position and thus may or may not make it into heaven as he is participating in known and vital error?

Do you honestly think the Bible is written to give us this information and insights on how to treat the John MacArthur's of this world?

Do you honestly think that John MacArthur gets up in the morning and tells God that he doesn't want to listen to Him in these areas?

Or is it possible that John MacArthur doesn't see things exactly as you do and he isn't the enemy or on God's most wanted list. And "known and vital error" is being misapplied here?

I'm just trying to understand the position that makes John MacArthur be described as "known and vital error."

 

[Pastor Larry]

Like was stated earlier by another on the hyper separatist side of the fence: it's o.k. to get some post grad from Masters, but not undergrad because those poor young saps aren't discerning enough.

For the record, that comment did not come from a hyper-separatist. It came from me ... unless someone else said the same thing and I missed it. And while i wouldn't call them "poor young saps," spiritual discernment is usually not finely honed in college age students.