Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Greg Linscott, Aug 11, 2004.
...the Conference on Biblical Belief and Balance in Indianapolis back in July? How did it go?
I did not go but my pastor did. He was actually one of the organizers. He thought it went exceptionally well. I think they would like to build on what was accomplished and do it again in a year or two.
They should be putting some of the material on the web at some point. When and if that happens I will post the link. Hopefully, they will make the audio from the sessions available as well.
I did not, but here's a link to a report from someone who did.
Report from an attendee.
Thanks for posting that link Siegfried. From that source, I found a link to Dr. Dan Davey's 6-page statement concerning using the term 'fundamentalist' that was presented at the conference:
Scroll down to the entry The Label of Fundamentalism.
Worth a read.
That was a great read
I found this section to be rather telling of the situation we find ourselves in on this board. People who espose historic fundamentalist positions are called new-evangelical by some who seem to espouse the pseudo-fundamentalism described in the above paragraph.
BTW Andy, we can take this offline, but are you near Live Oak Baptist Church?
Yes, and I know Nathan Young. I would not know about his church except that he visited and spent time in my church and with my pastor when he was scouting out the area. We fully support his efforts -- Atlanta is a big area. I understand that his current facilities are, well, less than ideal. I think they rent a sports facility and there are times when volleyball or indoor soccer games are going on while they are trying to conduct services. Church planting is tough.
Our Young Adult group went down and helped him do some promotion this summer, they also did some music in his services. They said they had to put up screens over the glass on one side since there was a soccer game going on on the other side.
I believe they are trying to get into a building with the help of Inter-City Baptist, up here in Allen Park, The Young's sending church.
That is a GREAT post, Dave. And right on the money with exposes this sub-sect of Christianity who have hijacked our historic name.
What do you think of this section from the same article?
Well, the BGC doesn't hold to Open Theism; in fact it opposes it:
In fact, Greg Boyd lost his Professorship (his resignation was requested) at the BGC's school, Bethel University (fka Bethel College) due to his Open Theism beliefs.
The beliefs of one pastor (Greg Boyd) are in this article used to (unfairly) indict the entire BGC.
So did Greg Boyd get kicked out of Bethel or BGC or both?
I did a little checking and the BGC's website still lists Boyd and his Woodland Hills Baptist Church as members. Is the BGC in the process of removing Boyd from their conference as well?
Just Bethel, to my knowledge, since the school obviously is under the BGC's control & authority.
His church (Woodland Hills, a church of 5,000 in average attendance), still is affiliated with the BGC as far as I know. And as a local, independant body of believers, I guess it's their call as to who their pastor is. So on that basis, I'd wonder if the BGC has any say in the matter. As Baptists, there's no hierarchy (i.e. Bishop) in the Conference that Boyd "reports" to as pastor of his local, autonomous, independent church. How would it work to "remove Boyd"? Would his church need to be asked to un-affiliate with the BGC? I don't know. How does Baptist church polity work in a situation like this?
When did Boyd get removed from Bethel? This resolution was passed just about the same time as the earlier one that you posted.
He resigned about 3 years ago I believe. That second-to-last paragraph is puzzling to me. I've always been told his options were basically presented to him as "resign, or be terminated", and that he chose the former.
Perhaps he didn't want to be under the restrictions placed on any faculty with open-theism beliefs that the 4th paragraph from the bottom details.
"Fundamentalism is viewed today through the eyes of not just the younger generation, but many in the evangelical movement, as a group of small thinkers, loud talkers, and silly teachers..."
It is quite comical to see people are still talking about the same issues that they were talking about 10 years ago when I attended Maranatha and Calvary Seminary in Lansdale. And what's even better is from some of the comments that I read from the speakers and the attenders of this "new" conference, it sounds like the speakers think that Christianity as a whole is in the balance and dependant on these gatherings of several hundred people as they try to define a "word" that defines a "movement."
Yet there are Christian gatherings of over 40,000 leaders from around the world going on and these leaders are not defining a movement but defining how they can impact their communities with the message of Jesus Christ.
I concluded 10 years ago that staying within and reforming a "movement" for the sake of a "movement" would be a waste of my time. Because I figured in 10 years, I'd be still sitting at conferences discussing the "movement." And if I didn't like what one conference said, I could start another conference to "better define" the "movement." I determind that the "movement" was "a group of small thinkers, loud talkers, and silly teachers..."
I've made some mistakes in life...don't get me wrong. But the one to not be involved in the "movement" but seek to create a movement in the city where I pastor and with the neighbors that live beside and with the organizations that can help me reach my community was one of the best decisions of my life!!
I was very interested in that section, since my pastor referred to the direction of our church prior to his arrival as "conservative new-evangelicalism" He has made many changes to address the issues that were not being viewed consistently with the stated theological views of the church. Interestingly enough, he dealt both with the tendancy to coast into areas of new-evangelical thought and practice, as well as issues related to the aformentioned cultural fundamentalists.
I would imagine that most what I call "balanced" fundamental ministries would at some level identify with the above quote. It can be difficult to set concrete boundaries on some issues of separation both ethically and ecclesiastically. Especially when dealing with common areas of disagreement, whether doctrinal or practical it can be difficult to discern what the watershed issues are, and where the line must be drawn. There are many areas where we can and should be able to agree to disagree without being labelled as a compromiser.
The Doctrinal issues seem to be more clear cut, which is why I would espouse much of the teaching of MacArthur or Piper, even if I had little agreement on specific areas of practice or separation. Those issues IMHO are less important when judging the quality of theological teaching, and more important when determining actual real world ministry cooperation, on that level the practical issues can be more critical to the decision.
As an example, Piper's philosophy in regards to separation from Open Theists really matters little to me in evaluating his own position on Open Theism, if you take my meaning.
Very well said. Their works can be used and recommended since most of their material is very sound. I have tended to stay away from MacArthur though, not because his writing is unsound, but because my experience with his ministry (through my brother going to Master’s) has clouded my impression of him and his spiritual discernment.
I understand what you’re saying but the question that has come up in this thread is whether Piper is a fundamentalist or not. He and the heretic Boyd belong to the same organization, the Baptist General Conference. What is the purpose of belonging to such a conference if it is not for fellowship, mutual support, and promotion? Regardless of what exactly happened at Bethel, it does not appear to me from reading documents on their website that the BGC is doing anything to revoke Boyd’s affiliation. Fundamentalists, in agreement and obedience to Scripture, separate from Boyd’s type of heresy. New Evangelicals stay in – that is their stated philosophy. What is Piper doing? I think Dan Davey nailed the situation pretty well in his article.
Love the "h" word (heretic) for someone who interprets Scripture differently than you do.
The BGC is home to Piper. The BGC is fundamental in doctrinal belief.
Now the BGC may allow some NON fundamentalists to join, but that in no way negates THEIR position as fundamentalists.
We have to get away from the sorry doctrine of secondary/thirdary/fourthary separation that is/was UNHEARD OF among historic fundamentalism.
That article was very good, we only posted a couple paragraphs here, y'all should check out the whole thing.
I am not familiar with the issues regarding Boyd and the BGC, but the point at which separation is necessary can be blurry at times. One would hope that if the BGC is refusing to purge heresy from its ranks that Piper would see the importance of removing his church from their fellowship.
Our church has removed itself from almost all organizations and conventions and has chosen, as was described by Happy G earlier, to simply make God's name famous in our community, and not get bogged down in the many petty issues that "fundamentalists" are arguing about here in MI. The small thinkers, loud talkers, and silly teachers have been working overtime.