New Youth Conference for fundamentalist!

Interesting comments concerning the Larry King appearances. Within the last couple years, Bob III was on with MacArthur, Lucado and a couple others--a rabbi, a priest and Deepak Chopra, if I remember right (almost sounds like the beginning of a joke--"a rabbi, a priest, and Deepak Chopra walked into a bar . . .").

Anyway, Bob III sent out an e-mail requesting prayer for him, JMac, and Lucado--that as they shared the gospel and refuted the false teachers that they would effectively present the gospel and that the Holy Spirit would accomplish His work. I'm paraphrasing, but there was clear reference to a cooperative effort to present the gospel.

I'm curious, how do those who think cooperating with JMac is a violation of biblical separation parse the situation so as to excuse Bob III on this one?

Again, I have no problem with what he did, but those who hold to the view of separation that has been espoused in this thread are rather inconsistent to give him a pass while indicting Hamrick.

 

I am skeptical of hte confessional idea. I had heard that previously and don't think there is much value in it. But time will tell.

As for BJII and King, I think BJII and MacArthur do preach the same gospel. I cannot say that for Max Lucado since he is apparently a church of Christ. I am not sure where he falls. But again, I don't think BJIII needs an "excuse." He was sitting in a round table discussion on a news program.

I can't help but think that you have misunderstood the "view of separation that has been espoused in this thread." I assume you are referring to either Andy or I since we have been the main ones (I think ... no offense to any I can't remember). I can't speak for him, but my position on separation would not rule out what BJIII does. The fact that two men might not have formal cooperation does not mean that they cannot appear on the same news program and share the same gospel. I don't see that as cooperation in any sense in relation to biblical separatism.

Some apparently think that separatists never say anything good about those from whom they separate and always view them as presenting a flawed or false gospel. I think with Paul, BJIII can rejoice whenever the gospel is preached, even by his personal enemies. That doesn't excuse other things. As I pointed out earlier (I think), it is not an "all or nothing" proposition.

 

So apparently it's not wrong for JMac to say good things about Hayford and others. It seems your view of ministry is limited to the pulpit or lecturne. Apparently if you're sitting around a table then it's a.o.k. If indeed BJIII sent out this letter asking for prayer on his and other's behalf then it seems clear that he himself viewed this as a ministry opportunity. One in which he was cooperating with JMac and Lucado.

I think people in your position would have more credibility if you were consistent. You draw these fine lines like a skilled draftsman around these (at worst) fuzzy issues. You give BJ a pass on everything, explaining away their actions. Perhaps because if you didn't you would have to separate from them.

You have NO IDEA what JMacs relationship to Hayford and the others is. Have you talked to MacArthur? Maybe he's discipling him? Maybe he's trying to pursuade him? I don't know, and neither do you. You say that JMac is wrong for two reasons: 1. He preached in Hayfords pulpit and 2. He said some nice things about the guy.

I see the preaching JMac did with Hayford as LESS cooperating than what BJIII did. As for the nice things, even you say that's o.k.

 

That was never the issue. It was his support and ministry cooperation that was the issue. I have said many good things about MacArthur, Warren, Piper and others. I would not cooperate with them in a ministry function at this point. I think they have too many questionable associations.

No, not necessarily ... It is really a function of intention. What is this association intended to do. When MacArthur preached for Hayford, it was to encourate and support the ministry at the Church on teh WAy. When MacArthur and BJIII talked on Larry King, it was not in support of each other's ministry in any way; it was to address a current events issue.

A ministry opportunity, perhaps. But so totally different as to not even really be in this same conversation. There is a world of difference between being a news show and cooperating in ministry. To be invited by a third party unsaved for a one time event is clearly not a statement in support of a ministry.

No one is completely consistent, even on this side, and certainly not on your side. But you are right to say that at worst these are fuzzy. AT best they are very clear. I think we get a little fuzzy around the edges. But on the main issues, it is pretty clear. We should not be in teh position of endorsing or encouraging the ministry of those who are disobedient.

I actually have not given BJ a free pass. I am very critical of many things they do. Their associations are broader than mine would be in many areas. They are weak on some doctrinal issues. And I really don't have much to do with them, certianly not in any formal sense.

Actually, I heard it from MacArthur's own mouth. I think it was at the Toledo Reformed Theological conference back in 97, but I am not sure. They are personal friends (which is fine). They have preached together, which is not. I think it leads to the image at least that MacArthur endorses or condones that theology and that ministry.

Those were the two examples I gave. There are many others. The problem with his preaching is that he preached in support of Hayford, and his comments were not tempered with caution.

I don't see how you can possibly make this statement. Hayford invited MacArthur to speak. MacArthur and Jones (and the others) were invited by an unbelieving third party to address a current events issue.

But nice things cannot ignore the real issues.

Perhaps we are too tied up in a personality here. Maybe we should phrase the question a different way: Is there ever a reason to separate ecclesiastically from another ministry?

 

Three Quick Questions to everybody: 1. Do you think Dr. Ollila will pull out of the conference? and 2. If he stays in, what are your thoughts? 3. If he stays in, what effect do you think this will have on Northland?

 

Pastor Larry,

I am simply saying that the people that represent this "movement" and that are putting on this "God focused" event are not the people that I would turn to in the event that I was trying to learn how to be God focused.

Look at this thread...it is all about people. Who is the "most right" in "our eyes?"

I think you said it best when you said, "I have not given BJU a free pass. I am critical of many things they do."

I'm just not into people that are critical of every other person that is trying to do their best to serve and love God and interpret the Scriptures properly. And I certainly don't feel the presence of God when I am around critical and negative people. I simply feel the overbearing presence of man.

Trust me, I know fundamentalism and the movement that is being described on this thread. I think there are better places to go to learn how to have a "God centered" ministry...with alot less man involved.

That is what I meant.

 

HappyG,

Where are these better places to learn? Please be specific.

 

I don't agree with that, at least from my perspective. The names are the focal point of the application of biblical principles. I think this thread is all about how to apply Scripture to modern day.

I think a failure to be critical in the right spirit is a failure to obey Scripture. God has called us to be critical. Christ was critical of religious leaders, even those of his own 12 such as Peter. Paul was critical of religious teachers, including Peter (again). So I think healthy criticism is not only not bad, it is necessary to biblical obedience.

My comments about BJU were not in a spirit of constant criticism. I disagree with them. I am not working against them. I recommend that as a possible option for students. I have many friends there. I simply disagree with them. I have not given them a free pass.

I think fundamentalism is in a good transition. I wait to see where it goes. I think there is far too much uncritical acceptance of anyone who seems to be having "success." Noted liberal Kirsopp Lake rightly noted that the Fundamentalists, whether right or wrong, are the tradition of church history. It is the non-fundamentalists who have changed.

I would be interested in your answer to my question on the bottom of hte previous page: Do you ever see a reason to separate from another ministry?

 

HappyG,

Aren't the people opposed to Holland's presence the ones who are making people the issue? I haven't seen where the conference web site addresses individuals at all. Rather, Hamrick is busting out of the fundy box by making core theology and ministry philosophy the major issue, NOT people and associations.

 

But Siegfried, my point (from my perspective) is that the people are the focal point because of the bigger issue. When Paul told Timothy to separate from Hymanaus and Alexander, was he making people hte issue? When he "withstood PEter to the face" was he making Peter the issue? When John spoke about Diotrophes, was he making people the issue? When Christ blasted the Pharisees was he making people the issue? I would answer all three with a no, and put this discussion in the same vein.

I think it sounds very pious (no offense intended) to claim we want to leave people out of it. But the Bible gives us abundant precedent for talking about people in light of their practices.

 

1. He stays. He knew going in what this was about. He's a man of conviction. He will not let the fundy denomination sway his convictions.

2. Amen. Now I know what college to recommend most positively.

3. Long-term positive. Short-term could go negative depending on which direction the fundy denominational group-think talking points lean.

 

Pastor Larry,

Given your doctrine of separation, I understand why you make people the issue. I wholeheartedly disagree with you on that doctrine, but I would not criticize you at all for applying your convictions to the ministry of your church.

My point was simply to respond to HappyG by suggesting that this conference has a philosophy with a different focus from the approach that you would take. I realize that people and associations are inseparable from your doctrinal core. I would draw lines in a different place because my doctrinal core is not identical to yours. Does it not seem that HappyG and Frank Hamrick would take a similar approach?

In other words, I understand how and why you land where you do. I just disagree with your how and why. At least I sort of do. I am confused by much of your hierarchy of permissible levels of cooperation.

 

Dr. Ollila knew Holland was speaking when he accepted the invitation and made a deliberate choice to accept. Other men were asked, and they declined as soon as they heard Holland was on docket. I personally don't agree with his decision, but if Dr. Ollila made it with a clear conscience and truly doesn't think it is a problem, then my opinion would be that he should act with personal integrity and stay on.

I don't think it will weigh too heavily on Northland, for there is new leadership at the helm. Northland's pursuit of TRACS demonstrates it's a new era, for Dr. Ollila was death on any kind of accreditation and his heart really hasn't been in step with that process either.

Not much bothers me more than when the "fear of man" drives decisions. That is why I am going to make the assumption that the folks who were saying Dr. Ollila accepted the invitation without knowledge of the speaker line-up were speaking out of integrity and truly didn't know the facts, not that they were trying to save their own skin. I hope that Dr. Ollila doesn't make any kind of statement, verbal or otherwise, that doesn't stem from his own heart. Maybe the hoopla won't allow him to maintain a clear conscience before man and stay on, and if that is the case, that would be a reason to pull out. Whatever his decision, I just pray he maintains his own personal integrity.

 

Why would you say I have made people hte issue? I have specifically said that from my perspective people are not the issue. I have given explicit biblical references to support my point where people were merely the focal point of the issue, not the issue itself. When you say I make people the issue, you are simply wrong. I have even tried to move the discussion ahead by asking if there are any situations in which people would see the necessity of separation from a ministry. No one seems to want to address that.

Why do you think I would take a different focus? I have long been concerned with people who are not God-centered in everything they do. I have hammered the point that we are to love God with all of our beings. I don't think Frank is advocating anything different than that. The conference itself, at least in name, is a philosophy or approach that I have preached and pursued long before Frank though up this conference.

I can't speak for you or HappyG. I don't think Frank and I would have any doctrinal disagreements. Our doctrinal core would be the same.

Yeah, me too ... Seriously, I would love to pursue this some more. I don't make any pretense of being perfectly consistent or of having all the answers. I would love to get past this issue of personalities and talk about the biblical principles of separation. My suspicion is this: that is Person A had the practices of John MacArthur, but we didn't know his name, there would be more people agreeing with me. That is just my suspicion. Of course there is no way to know, especially since no one wants to talk about the real issues ... or at least what the real issues are IMO.

So I repeat my question: Do you see any reason to separate from any ministry?

 

Would you be willing to say who?

 

ForHisGlory15,

Do you think Matt Olson is in step with Dr. Ollila on this (if in fact Dr. O stays in)?

I'm quite certain that Dr. O was fully aware of Holland's presence before he accepted. I have heard for the last week that he was going to pull out, but nothing yet. I'm trying to figure out why rumors have gone around: 1. Dr. O wasn't aware, and 2. He's pulling out.

I think Northland get a boost from this. There are far too many young guys who are frustrated with this. If Dr. O stays in, my opinion of Northland is elevated.

 

Pastor Larry, I would answer your question to say that I agree with ProTeens doctrinal statement.

I also think you can separate from whoever you want as a local church. If you want to separate from the other independent fundamental church down the road then go right ahead. I believe in your autonomy. I even think you have the liberty to separate from JMac if you want.

Personally, I don't think separation is an all or nothing proposition in every case. I don't think I would necessarily "cooperate" with Grace Community by having Rick Holland come speak on music (not that I think he is in sin), but his music may not be my preference. Does that mean I should separate on everything from him? I say, no.

For example: I would probably let my youth group go to a paintball youth activity with a conservative Southern Baptist church. I probably wouldn't let them go to a roller skating activity. Does that mean I think the other church is in sin because of their style of music? No. I just don't prefer it. Does that mean I should separate from them on everything? I say, no.

What about participating in a youth activity with another independent, fundamental baptist church whose youth pastor's M.O. is to preach man-centered messages with over-the-top gospel presentations? Should I separate from them? Maybe.

You seem to be much more tied to a movement than I am. The line that JMac is a "neo" has been said so often that we fail to be objective. We have our own presupposition and then try to make the evidence fit. (It works the opposite way too. i.e. Bob Jones is swell. Therefore, anything questionable with it is defended as an apples and oranges argument).

It reminds me of the media and democrats. Say it loud enough and long enough and people will begin to believe it.

 

Have any of you listened to the messages by Rick Holland on the godfocused.org website? What are your thoughts.

 

Agreed, its not about the people, but The men being discussed in this thread hardly stands up next to the doctrinal perversion indicated in your examples, unless you throw in the six degrees of JMac. He preached for so and so who preached for so and so, Who spoke in the same confrerence as a guy who used the same used car dealer as a guy who once walked past Billy Graham in a New Jersey gas station.

Thats an exaggeration I know, but the issues are hardly the same thing. You are speaking of Paul directly separating from false teaching, and there is no included Biblical precedent there for separating from those who once were friendly to said teachers, when the whole of their ministry has been clearly opposed to such teaching.