New Youth Conference for fundamentalist!

I said "if." Honestly, I don't know. His appearance gives at least a tacit stamp of approval.

I have no idea and you don't either. I don't know any one who will be there, so I can't testify to their discernment. I know that younger men (as youth pastors typically are) are very personality oriented. They may or may not be able to separate these things.

All I said was that this was a matter worthy of thought. And you (and everyone else) should be putting some thought in about it.

 

Some of what sifts through (not just from you, but others I've talked to) is there seems to be a fear that if ProTeens has this conference some young men might consider either 1. Recommending Masters, or 2. These youth pastors might get additional training at the seminary.

I suppose the only colleges we could, in good conscience recommend, are BJ (of course: a non-denominational school that has Ian Paisley speak), Maranatha, and Northland (whose Chancellor is scheduled to speak at this same conference).

Maybe the reason some of these guys would get "turned on" to Masters is because the guy they hear can articulate a relevant, biblical philosophy of youth ministry (GASP!). I have yet to hear anyone from BJ do this (in fairness, they may exist, but I haven't heard it yet). Mostly what I hear being pounded from behind the pulpit is behaviorism.

I have been to our usual fundamental youth conferences and there is a fervor that sweeps the room when the keynote speaker proclaims, "WHAT OUR KIDS NEED IS TO GET RID OF ROCK MUSIC, SHORTS, AND THEIR PORNOGRAPHY!" The chorus of Amens is deafening. This used to be the domain of "evangelists", but it has seeped into many youth ministries.

I have been to those same conferences when I have heard Dr. Hamrick, in a gentle cadence, say, "We need to give our kids a passion for their wonderful Savior. Oh, that we would love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, and mind," and all I heard was about three brave souls say, Amen.

I don't think that ProTeens has the corner on a God-focused philosophy and I don't think they do either, which is why they have asked Rick.

 

I used to go to youth conferences. My experience was much different than you relate. I never heard anything about shorts. I did hear stuff about getting rid of rock music and pornography. Not sure why we would complain about that, but hey ... whatever ...

I would not recommend the Master's College for various reasons. I have considered attending the Master's Seminary for doctoral work. The difference that a college student is very formative; a post grad seminary student is more settled and discerning if they have a good education.

You say you have never heard anyone from BJ articulate a relevant biblcial philosophy of youth ministry. Isn't Hamrick from there? He has spoken there many times. I have heard him and, as I say, enjoyed him. I would certainly recommend other colleges than you have listed, but that is neither here nor there.

 

You obviously missed my point.

Seems very inconsistent based on principle. And by "good education" do you mean they need to go to a school like BJ first so they can be grounded in truth, and then they can move on to a compromising school?

Hamrick went to school at Piedmont. He NEEDS to speak more at BJU! But, I reckon he'll be black-balled after this conference he's puttin' on.

 

You know, I wish I could write half as well as Bob Bixby and I certainly admire how well read he is, but I’m with Larry in that his historical argument doesn’t cut it with me. I’m not going to approve of smoking just because Spurgeon wouldn’t give up his cigars.


The main thing that bothered me about Bixby’s response, however, was his flippant attitude towards the objectionable elements within the GCC youth group. The use of rock music in teen ministry points to a man-centered focus rather than a God-centered focus, and to me, it points to a serious misunderstanding of the character of God. To Bixby, all this is just a matter of “like” versus “not like.” Well, you can’t have a God-focused youth ministry if you ignore how the character of God should change our behavior.

I did not know that MacArthur identifies himself as a fundamentalist in Truth Matters. That is very interesting because I did not think that he wanted to be identified with that term. Bixby also mentions Iain Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided. It is true that many conservative evangelicals are beginning to see the tragic results of new evangelicalism (or the unfulfilled promise, to use McCune’s terminology). It would not surprise me if men like MacArthur are beginning to move towards fundamentalism, even if they think, like Murray says, that fundamentalists went to far. I think it is also true that many fundamentalists are moving towards the conservative evangelical position – just look at this conference.

Andy

 

Can't speak for Hamrick, but personally I would want any youth pastor to do more research than just hearing a guy at a conference before recommending a college somewhat connected to him. If they did that research and came to the conclusion that Master's would provide a great atmosphere for the further discipleship and education of their teens, I wouldn't have the slightest twinge of conscience. I think there is way too much assumption that sending kids off to BJU or [pick a first initial]BBC is the best option. It may be, but it may not be.

By the way, you seemed to imply that I have an axe to grind [my words, not yours] against BJU in reaching to find a criticism. Far from it. I've written the same things to the administration that I've said here. My intention is simply to share what I genuinely believe is an accurate perspective, albeit distinct from the typical fundamentalist talking points usually droned by BJU alums.

We can agree to disagree on the accreditation thing. Whether the 3 people reading our arguments on the love triangle between Bob Jones, Hayford, and JMac side with you or me I don't know. Frankly, I think I know you well enough to say it probably isn't anything either of us will lose sleep over.

 

That pretty much sums up my thoughts about this whole issue, conference included.

 

aefting wrote:
You know, I wish I could write half as well as Bob Bixby and I certainly admire how well read he is, but I’m with Larry in that his historical argument doesn’t cut it with me. I’m not going to approve of smoking just because Spurgeon wouldn’t give up his cigars.

I am quite certain you missed Bob's point. I talked to Bob today. He uses the arguments from History because so many like to throw around "titles" i.e. historic fundamentalism, new evangelical, Baptist tradition, etc. His point is not searching to find blanket justification. He is attempting to use the words of history to define those terms as oppose to contemporary revisions of those titles. Also, in reference to the "flippant attitude towards the objectionable elements" you quoted from Bob, let me share with you a quote from Mark Dever, the Pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington DC.
He made this statement in reference to the drinking of wine:
"Total abstinence from alchohol is not a prerequisite for membership here. This is easy for me to say, because I have never taken a sip. Total abstinence is required for the leadership. It is my belief that for us to require total abstinence from alchohol for church membership,it would be a sin. We would be creating a division in the body of Christ that He Himself does not create."

Could we be guilty of doing this with issues like music?

 

I also believe it to be good thing to have men that share the same core theology and philosophy of youth ministry but differ on preference issues. I believe this builds strength in the Body of Christ. I am convinced the conference will be better, stronger and more profitable because their will be men that differ on the non-essentials. Diversity (on non-essential,fundamental teaching) should build unity, mutual respect and admiration.

 

Good point J Mac. The Bible speaks pretty forcibly about those who cause divisions. It seems like I could equally separate and avoid those who cause divisions (or divide themselves) over issues that are at best gray. Rom. 16:17

Within fundamentalism there is a militant desire to separate over issues of practice as opposed to issues of theology. We'll gladly accept someone in our pulpit who teaches easy believism, but anathema to he who has music standards that are less strict than Mac Lynch or Ron Hamilton.

I love how Andy broad-brushed all of GCC's music as "rock." C'mon Andy! Don't be cotton-headed-ninnymuggins (Please forgive my angry spirit .

 

Romans 16:17-18 is a passage too often overlooked. But we should take the time to look at it.

The dissension is caused by those who teach contrary to the truth of Scripture. Such men are to be turned away from. Many often blame the separatist for causing the division. Nothing could be further from the truth when separatism is practiced biblically. When Jack Hayford taught contrary to Scripture. JMac should have exposed and turned away from him. He did not. That is absolutely inexplicable why a man of MacArthur's apparent depth of theology misses so simple a point.

There are some who separate over the wrong things to be sure. We should expose and repudiate them. But we cannot fail to separate over what Scripture has commanded separation. To fail in such a call is to live in willful disobedience to God. No amount of good can offset that.

 

To fail in such a call is to live in willful disobedience to God. No amount of good can offset that.


If you, in fact, believe the statement you just wrote, does it describe J Mac.?

 

Yes, I have made that clear. MacArthur has done some great things, and I have personally benefitted from his ministry. I enjoy hearing him preach and I enjoy many of his books. But in this area, he is living in willfull disobedience to God, and all of things I previously said do not offset that. We should not give him a free pass simply because he is popular or because he has done much good. Honesty and integrity calls us to a higher standard.

 

What if someone is teaching contrary to what the Bible teaches on the matter of separation itself?

Is not this very passage teaching to separate from non-believers who cause dessensions and hindrances? How do you explain that these men are "not of our Lord Christ" (NASB)?

The majority of the texts dealing with separation are dealing with separating from those in your own local church. To broaden this out to separating from those in other churches/ministries who are NOT causing dissensions and hindrances is itself "contrary to the truth of Scripture."

MacArthur has been THE voice against charismatics (i.e. Charismatic Chaos). How can you say that he gave him a pass? Who within our circles has "exposed" Jack Hayford with half the zeal that JMac has?

MacArthur has done as much for the cause of Christ as anyone I can think of. He has proclaimed the truth again and again in a way that puts fundamentalists to shame. His theology is sound. He may allow music in his youth ministries that is less strict than what I would prefer, but once again that is NOT an issue to separate over.

 

Pastor Larry,
Based on Romans 16:17,18, I can no longer dialouge with you.

 

I haven't noticed any of your posts to be mean-spirited. We're just discussing things. I'm not angry. I don't know what "cotton-headed-ninnymuggins" means, though.

BTW, I did not refer to *all* of GCC's music as rock. I was just referring to their use of it as implied in Bob Bixby's blog.

Andy

 

Andy, I threw my worst, most derogitory name at you and it bounced right off your force field of forgiveness. Thank you for your tender-hearted and forgiving spirit.

Now. Let's get back to SLAMMIN' MacArthur.

 

That is not true. John MacArthur left BJU and fundamentalism in the 50's over the Billy Graham issue. His dad resigned from the BJU board. He made a clear break with fundamentalism and aligned himself with new evangelicalism. This is all historical fact. If he is now warning about Billy Graham, etc, then he has moved significantly from his position early on in his ministry.

Andy

 

Andy, the point is that Mac isn't MOVING anywhere and has always BEEN a fundamentalist, even if the militant fundies don't want to admit him into the club!! </font>[/QUOTE]Is it wrong or "divisive," then, for one who is a militant Fundamentalist to prefer and promote those whom they share the greatest degree of unity? Is it wrong to be concerned when a brother shows signs of moving in a different derection?

I have been giving this much thought. My ultimate concern is this- when it comes down to it, the topic of the conference- being "God-Focused"- is obscured because of the introduction of the Holland/GCC/Masters/MacArthur element. Whether we like it or not, it brings a future of fundamentalism/what is fundamentalism topic, when what should be being focused on is youth ministry that is God-Focused.

I've heard Dr. Ollila several times. I have heard Frank Hamrick, and used his materials. Scot Shelburne is a great young pastor, and very gifted in the application of Scriptural truth to life. These men, in my estimation, are Fundamentalists who are getting it right when it comes to youth ministry. In conservative evangelical/moderate fundamental circles, Rick Holland is also one who gets it right when it comes to youth ministry philosophy. This matter of cooperation between militant Fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals is one that needs to be addressed- but in the end, I believe that it is unwise and distracting to choose the forum of a youth workers conference centered on philosophy of youth ministry to bring in someone whose overall ministry philosophy differs enough to distract from the subject matter.