What do you do with Promise Keepers?

So are you suggesting PK cannot offer scriptural advise on how to be a good husband or father? Would you also propose that the "I Still Do" conferences and other family-focused parachurch ministries are unscriptural? What about Navigators or Campus Crusade or Wycliffe Bible Translators? Where do you draw the line?

 

I don't go to Habitat for Humanity looking for a scriptural way to build houses.

H for H uses biblical principles in their endeavors. Just one example: They don't charge the recipients of the houses interest on their loan. That's because the Bible says one should not charge interest to the poor. Also, the house does not get turned over to the owner until a pastor performs a benediction at the home site, in effect, asking for God's blessings over the occupants.

 

Promise Keepers can't be faulted for the organization's goals. Nor is the mere fact that it is an ecumenical organization wrong in itself.

However, in seeking to become acceptable to a broader base of men, they have had to compromise the truth of the Gospel. The most egregious example of this is the 1997 revision of their doctrinal statement, which originally read:

and subsequently reads:

There is a world of difference between "faith alone" and "faith in Christ alone." The change was made specifically to appease Roman Catholic men interested in getting involved. Catholic doctrine rejects "faith alone" because the Roman church claims one must continually work to remain in God's favour. However, the Romanists would have no problem with "Christ alone"; it simply affirms the exclusivity of Christ's ability to save, but it still allows for human merit to be added to faith.

This is much different from merely downplaying differences in tradition and practice between evangelicals. The above is an unacceptable compromise that strikes right at the heart of the Gospel itself.

 

I think that's a bit of a symantic stretch.

 

Is there someone here who honestly has difficulty with this statement? If you are trusting in Christ ALONE for salvation, then guess what? You are not trusting in human merit. This statement does not violate any of the fundamentals.

 

Why not ask them, instead of assuming it was to "appease the Catholics". Perhaps they did it because they felt it needed slimming down, after getting "fat".

Again, I think the hypothesis is abit of a symantic stretch.

 

No, I'm saying PK does offer scriptural advice on the subject. That's the difference between HFH and PK: People go to HFH to get or build a house, and any knowledge that it's a biblically-based organization is usually accidental. People go to PK knowing full well it's supposed to be scripturally based.

Now, whether that scripturally-based advice from PK is correct or not is truly the question, isn't it?

In the meantime, I for one will take a stand, and unequivocably state that I cannot fellowship shoulder to shoulder with someone who has a works-based faith or believes baptism is required for salvation. I cannot overlook denominational lines, and say that their way to heaven is just as good and right as the one I know for a fact is correct from the Bible.

And that's what PK asks you to do, every time you get together to fellowship with them. Therefore, I can't support them.

 

I ain't never been to a ' Keeper rally--but I know lots of guys who have. Hasn't helped according as to the manner of conduct I see afterward when they return.

Bunch of men who somehow can syncrinize themselves together to do the colluseum "wave" and bat beach balls around over their heads and huggin' each other--all at the same time.

I've heard McCartney speak--weak theology--like puttin' skim milk over a bisquit instead of the cream thats suppose to be there! "Lets not offend any denominations--including the mormans!"

I've figured as a man--I don't have to travel 599 miles one way to a rally--to do a wave or bat a beach ball--I can buy tickets to a Saints ballgame if I want to do that! The idea of moving men to be obedient is to move men toward the Lord Jesus Christ through the work of the Holy Spirit--I can do that on Sundays and Wednesdays at church--less than 100 yards away from where I live!

Your friend,
Blackbird

 

My husband and I see problem with the weak teaching,also. He attended this 2 times ealrier,but after study and lots of discernment,we see that it is not calling men to obedience to scripture-this is what we are striving for in our lives.

 

From what I have gathered, the major complaints about PK boil down to these:

- Secondary separation: I'm not going to rub shoulders with no Catholic, etc.

Response: Then you had better abstain from attending any event where there are any believers outside of your denomination. This includes Christian concerts, family conferences, "Christian" day at Six Flags, a passion play in Branson, and on and on and on.

BTW, you had also better abstain from attending any event where there are any Christians from the Baptist circles as well b/c you can rest assured there are people there who are trusting in works for their salvation.

Consistency is very difficult in the world of distorted secondary separation.

- The theology is watered-down at PK

Response: Don't let me disappoint you here, but PK is not designed as a theological quorum. It is a gathering of men (some lost-some saved) for the purpose of encouraging them to be the fathers and husbands God intended. Is every man going to be revolutionized by the gathering? Of course not. Just like most people who attend your church on a given Sunday leave with little or no change in their lives.

For every story of unchanged lives, there are many who have been challenged and changed. Just b/c it doesn't work for you doesn't mean it is insufficient or should be discontinued.

Also, I have yet to see a legitimate theological complaint where the fundamentals of the faith were distorted.

- PK takes away from the local church.

Response: Untrue. If anything, it encourages you to be more supportive of your local church. Sure some will fall prey to elevating a parachurch organization to an unhealthy place in their life, but that is going to happen in every para organization. That does not mean we eliminate them.

- Bill MaCartney is a weak speaker.

Response: Agreed. But isn't it amazing how God uses the weak to do great things? BTW, I have heard many PK speakers who are far from weak. MaCartney has never motivated me by what he has said, but that does not mean God has not used him in a great way.

Like any other organization, PK is not perfect. But we should also be open-minded enough to know that God works in a number of ways. And we should also be thankful for an organization that wants to encourage men to be what God intends. I don't know about you, but when I look across my congregation, I realize we sure can use some more godly fathers and husbands. And if PK will help inspire one man to be what he should, praise God.

 

I think your understanding of what "secondary separation" is is flawed. It based on a improper premise ... that one can be obedient while associating ecclesiologically with the disobedient. Romans 16:17-18 tells us that separation is demanded from those who teach contrary to true doctrine. That means that as an institution/organization, we should have no fellowship with those who are doctrinally wrong or those who fail to be obedient. The separation is not secondary; it is primary. For instance, I do not separate from Person A because he fails to separate from Person B. I separate from Person A because Person A is disobedient.

Denominations are not the issue per se although denominational differences are doctrinal differences and thereby the issue is doctrine and obedient. All your examples have merit and in many cases would be inappropriate for an obedient believer to attend.

We need to get over this fear of man and get back to obedience.

 

Promise Keepers has encouraged many Christians I know. I think that some churches are threatened by it simply because they dont trust their membership to join in with Christians from other fellowships for fear of losing them.

 

Thank you, Pastor Larry! Well said.

I agree that churches should be teaching what Promise Keepers is teaching, but a lot aren't. That would be--and it's only my guess--why some men are finding themselves at Promise Keepers instead of at their church.

The strong churches that I've been privileged to be a part of do this, and they grow and are strong because of it. The weak churches that I've been a part of, don't.

To believe that the only reason churches are against PK is because they're afraid of losing members...is to uncategorically deny everything Pastor Larry stated.

 

Johnv said:

I think that's a bit of a symantic stretch.

Indeed it is - stretched into a completely different shape.

SBCbyGRACE said:

Is there someone here who honestly has difficulty with this statement?

The problem is not so much that the statement is false, it is that it is weak. The previous iteration affirmed orthodox soteriology - sola fide. The current iteration does not affirm sola fide.

When a statement of faith touching on the heart of the Gospel waters down what it affirms to the extent that purveyors of a false gospel can agree with it, it has become useless.

As I said, there is a big difference between statements that affirm "faith alone" - WHAT saves - and "faith in Christ alone" - WHO saves.

[ October 24, 2002, 10:23 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

Secondary separation is a term that many in your camp want to avoid b/c it seems to imply it is not "primary" (as you call it). I can understand your reluctance to be identified with such a term, but in the end, your explanation of your belief aligns you with those many would place in the secondary seperationist category.

A few points of clarification:

1) "associating ecclesiologically" is a broad term that demands explanation. Gathering with others who profess the name of Christ for edification or encouragement purposes is not necessarily an ecclesiastical association. My ecclesiological association is with other churches with which I choose to come together (such as the SBC). It does not entail what parachurch organizations with which I choose to be a part.

If you are going to be consistent here, you have to maintain this mindset in every arena of life. In other words, I cannot listen to christian radio b/c someone who is trusting in works may be listening to the same station. I cannot attend concerts, Christmas pageants, passion plays, or any other event where the possibility of someone who added to salvation is present (we will not even get into the people in one's own congregation who are trusting in an aisle walk or baptism). Again, consistency is a must to maintain this line of reasoning.

2) Rom 16.17-18 appears to deal with the teaching and promotion of doctrine that is divisive or contrary to the fundamentals. One must also take into account the original context of this text and ask whether Paul is dealing with the prominent pseudo-religious teachings of his day or whether he is making a blanket statement to avoid all people who may believe falsely about salvation.

Furthermore, the emphasis of the text is to avoid those who seem to be promoting such doctrine. PK is not promoting a false doctrine. And Paul is not saying do not go to the same arena, shopping market, or schools of those who BELIEVE differently. He is saying avoid the TEACHERS/PROMOTERS of such doctrine. Big difference (thus secondary separation terminology).

3) Are you really suggesting that we should have no fellowship with those who are disobedient? If so, you better stay home on Sundays b/c our churches are full of disobedient Christians. Again the emphasis must rest on the teaching or promotion of contrary doctrine.

4) This is not an issue of "I am obeying - you are afraid of men" as you imply. Attending a PK conference does not fall into the realm of obedient/disobedient Christian. This is an issue of whether as a Christian I can go to a wholesome, moral, Christ-centered rally and stand beside people with whom I may or may not agree on every doctrinal issue and learn how to be a better father and husband. Evidently your answer is no, and that is fine. But do not be guilty based upon your own PREFERENCE of condemning the movement itself or those who attend. Again God works outside our limited view of how we believe He functions.

Your view of secondary separation is a choice that demands consistency. But since the Scripture does not dogmatically oppose such interaction, it is unfair to be so dogmatic.

 

Your opinion is noted .

And when you develop a doctrinal statement for such a group, you can be as clear as your desire that you are talking about Reformation faith.

But at the end of the day, there is nothing in this statement that diminishes the truth of the gospel.

 

SBCbyGRACE said:

But at the end of the day, there is nothing in this statement that diminishes the truth of the gospel.

So . . . PK can go from a doctrinal statement that affirms both "faith alone" and "Christ alone," to one that affirms "Christ alone" but not "faith alone," and yet Christians can still confidently assert that nothing is diminished?

Amazing.

This is the state of conservative Christianity at the beginning of the 21st century. Doctrine divides. Let's all just praise Jesus.

Rightly is they called "evanjellyfish."

[ October 24, 2002, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: Ransom ]

 

I am not avoiding it necessarily. I think it is a misnomer and I think you have not yet reckoned with the issues involved. However, that is up to you. I will only make a few comments.

The issue of separation always has to do with obedience. It we are obedient in truth and obedient in practice. If I lead my church to participate in a conference where unbiblical doctrine is being taught or where men who are disobedient are being honored, then I have compromised my commitment to obedience. A parachurch organization is no different. Doctrine is doctrine whether it is in a church building or in a football stadium. We do not condemn adultery only when it takes places inside the church building. We condemn it no matter where it takes place because obedience is obedience.

I realize that it is hard to draw lines and I might draw them at places others would not be comfortable drawing them. There are good men both to the right and left of me in the spectrum of separation.

I don’t think you have quite grasped the idea here as I see it. Paul did not say we are to separate with no one who is sinful; then we would have to go out of the world (2 Cor 5). In other words, he expressly addresses your argument by saying it is wrong. It is when these people are so-called brothers (notice that he does not even admit their salvation), that separation and discipline is necessary. =

Precisely. Notice that the division is caused by those who teach contrary, not by those who separate. For instance, if person A teaches contrary doctrine and Person B exposes him and separates from him, it is Person A who has caused the division. Most of the time, we have that turned around in our thinking. I think it is clear that Paul is addressing religious teaching, not those who believe falsely about salvation. Doctrine is not limited to salvation. It is much wider. When someone contradicts it and splits the fellowship of believers, they are to be repudiated and separated from.

PK does promote false doctrine by having these men to speak in their rallies. You are right that Paul is not saying do not go to the same arena, shopping market, or schools of those who BELIEVE differently. He is saying avoid the TEACHERS/PROMOTERS of such doctrine. Big difference (thus secondary separation terminology).. That is precisely the problem. When someone takes the pulpit and preaches, they are promoting their doctrine. I would not say don’t go shop or go out to eat with someone who has been to PK. That would be a misunderstanding of what I have said. I am talking about the bigger issues of obedience. 1) Can I have ecclesiological promotion of those who teach false doctrine and who encourage the teaching of false doctrine? 2) Should I expose the men in my church to men who teach false doctrine and encourage false doctrine? My answer on both counts is no. Yours may be different and you will have to answer for that, whether right or wrong.

No. I don’t know where you got that from. However, the emphasis is not only as you say on Again the emphasis must rest on the teaching or promotion of contrary doctrine. In 1 Cor 5, 2 Thess 3 and 2 Cor 6-7, the emphasis is action and behavior. You make it an either/or and a very narrow one at that. Scripture does not seem to allow such a distinction. It is both doctrine and behavior that are in view.

My statement was directed at the broader issue of compromising theological commitments so we don’t offend those who differ from us. It was not directly attacking PK although a case can be made. I do not agree that PK is a wholesome, moral, Christ-centered rally in all respects. I think there are some philosophical and theological issues that call that into question.

I think Scripture may be clearer on this than you are willing to admit.

 

People go to HFH to get or build a house, and any knowledge that it's a biblically-based organization is usually accidental. People go to PK knowing full well it's supposed to be scripturally based.

People go to HFH knowing full well it's a scripturally based organization.

PK is also scripturally based, even if its scriptural base is not up to par with your litmus test of what it should be. That doesn't make its scriptural influence any less valid.