What do you do with Promise Keepers?

I agree. Out of sheer boredom, I went to David Clown's website and some of the things he writes are a hoot, particularly the one about long hair.

 

Ecumenicalism is a subjective term (which is a primary part of the whole discussion). I have yet to be shown where PK compromises one of the fundamentals. There seems to be this line of reasoning that suggests that if one participates in an event such as PK, then that person is being disobedient based upon an ecclesiastical separation issue (which leads to one's definition of primary vs secondary separation). My contention is that a believer can participate in an event for edification purposes w/o endorsing the theology of every person involved. I have yet to attend a conference where I was in complete agreement with every speaker's doctrinal point of view. That being said, we must examine the organization's doctrinal beliefs. Do those beliefs violate one of the fundamentals? For PK the answer is no. As far as I know, PK has not compromised the essentials of the gospel. Furthermore, they are clear that their speakers must embrace their beliefs. For that reason, I believe it is unfair to label someone disobedient who attends one of these rallies.

A Christian can choose from whom they want to separate. My suggestion however is to be careful about labeling those who make a different choice than you (when the fundamentals are not at stake).

As far as your second point, secondary separation is a catch-phrase with which very few who practice it accept the term (much like being called a legalist -- most who are accused of being one deny the label and redefine the term).

My definition of primary ecclesiastical separation is that I will abstain from supporting an event/service/etc. where the fundamentals of the faith are being violated. Eg, I would not participate in a prayer service for Christians, muslims, buddhists, etc.

[ October 25, 2002, 10:00 AM: Message edited by: SBCbyGRACE ]

 

I've been reading this whole thread and would like to give my opinion of Promise Keepers. I have attended at least two of their events.

I think we need to keep PK in it's proper perspective. PK is not a church espousing its own religion. I see it as a tool that helps the church teach it's members biblical concepts on manhood. It doesn't claim to be the final solution on producing godly men and shouldn't. That's the local church and the Holy Spirit's job. PK is very strong about supporting your local church. If you start a PK accountability group, it should be of members of your own local church and coordinate with other ministries with the church, not conflict with them or make them a lower priority.

There is nothing unbiblical with their statement of belief or goals. They want to help produce godly men, who follow biblical principles in their roles as husbands, fathers, and church members.

To do this, they realize that a man must be saved, so they have a very clear gospel presentation and invitation the first night of the conference events. Both conferences I went to, this message was clear, consistent, and 100% biblical - saved by grace through faith in Christ alone.

The rest of the speakers all deal with an aspect of being a Godly man. All spoke the truth of scripture and how it had applied to them and their experiences.

Now would I agree with every doctrinal position of every speaker I heard at a PK conference?...Probably not. Did that make anything they told me that didn't deal with those doctrinal positions untrue?....NO! Did the Lord use their words and the truth of His Word to convict my heart and teach me lessons that I needed to learn?....YES!

As far as separation goes.....why would you want to limit who comes to these biblical conferences? Do catholics not need to hear the gospel and how to become more godly men? Presbyterians? Lutherans? The Unchurched? Do you really believe it is wrong to stand next to a member of a different denomination and both bow your head and pray for Godly wisdom and strength to be a better husband, father, and church member?

I'll admit, I'm not always comfortable during the praise and worship times because of some of the songs etc., but ya know what?....That's style not substance. It was all God honoring, just not the way I'm used to it, but that DOESN'T MAKE IT WRONG!

So this is what I know of PK. Others may have different experiences, but let's not make too much out of it. It's not the ecumenical anti-christ, but it's not the ultimate solution to God's will being carried out on earth either. I believe it is simply a good tool that the church can use as a starting point or "shot in the arm" for a men's ministry.

Grace and Peace!

 

Thanks WW2er for your input. I agree with your words.

This issue is not just about PK. It also deals with the misappropriation of the word separation in some circles.

If you have read the entire thread, you have noticed the lack of response of those who oppose PK concerning PK's belief statement. Reason? PK's beliefs are consistently orthodox and evangelical. Therefore, opponents must attack them at a secondary level, which is where the separation issue surfaces.

 

This issue is not just about PK. It also deals with the misappropriation of the word separation in some circles.

Yes, a point which many, like me, don't think is a "misappropriation".

 

What gives rise to these extra local church organizations? Is it not that the local church may have failed in someway? We have not focused enough in any given direction?

My argument with extra curricular activities is that whilst they claim to be pro local church, they insist on holding meetings that compete with local churches by holding meetings on Sundays.

We cannot be all things to all people and sometimes these extra services fill a need. So be it, for a season, but then the arrow should point directly to local church and service.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Jim,

Unfortunately I would say that the local church has failed in many ways.(Realizing all churches are different, please don't deluge me with emails about how your particular church has not failed at anything.) Most likely they just haven't made certain things priorities of their preaching and teaching. Other times, they are too small or don't have the resources. I would say it's not intentional by any means. You just can't hit every important topic as hard as you would like to.

I don't know what organizations you are thinking of, but both PK events I went to were Friday night until late Saturday afternoon conferences. It didn't conflict with Sunday at all. Has anyone been to a PK event on a Sunday?

WW2'er

[ October 25, 2002, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: WW2'er ]

 

I agree. Out of sheer boredom, I went to David Clown's website and some of the things he writes are a hoot, particularly the one about long hair.</font>[/QUOTE]Do you feel it necessary to belittle everyone you disagree with ? Or just the ones who's biblical stance makes you uncomfortable ? Sheesh, Mike. Say you don't like him, put down what you don't like about him, but you don't have to make fun of his name. I'm sure he wouldn't do it to you.

"Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him?"1Corinthians 11:14

[ October 29, 2002, 06:04 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

After careful study, I have decided that PKers may feel better about themselves, and may even learn something about being a better father, husband, but that advice is already covered in the Bible. Are there no good role models in your own church ? Is it worth breaking down denominational walls to fellowship ? I don't think so. JMHO

Ecumenism is an enemy of Biblical Christianity. There are no two ways about it. We are forbidden to fellowship with error.

 

If calling David Cloud - David Clown qualifies as inappropriate, what does calling the leaders of PK enemies of Christendom and in error qualify as?

Consistency is so hard

 

Am I making fun of anybody here ? Am I belittleing somebodies name because I don't like what they have to say ? Or am I stating facts, or opinions, that concern specific issues ?

And what leaders did I say were enemies ?

Huge difference.

[ October 29, 2002, 06:56 AM: Message edited by: Bro. Curtis ]

 

Actually, after eading what Brother Cloud has to say about the PKers, it's no wonder you feel threatened by him, and have to lash out. He uses the Bible to expose them, and the best you guys can do is poke fun at his name. I should expect as much.

"If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you."
John 15:18

 

Could you refer me to the post where I "lashed out" at Cloud? I don't care what his name is (which I did not make fun of by the way). The only time I even referenced Cloud was when I suggested the source should always be considered.

Legalism does not threaten me.

Still waiting for any true biblical denouncement of PK's statement of beliefs.

Until then ...

 

No you only called them enemies of biblical Christianity

No you simply stated they are enemies of biblical Christianity b/c you disagree with them over a non-essential.

D. None of the above

My fault you evidently were referring to the movement as a whole and not just its leaders

You are right there is a huge difference in referring to someone as a clown (TIC style) and referring to someone as an enemy of biblical Christianity. Huge difference indeed.

 

Did your read the posts that I gave?? I identified a number of speakers who deny the biblical doctrine of salvation (i.e, Roman Catholics). That is a fundamental issue no matter which way you slice it. To say that we are not responding is simply false. We responded. If you would like to contend that catholic soteriology is biblical, then we have a bigger problem. If you would like to contend that having catholic speakers and promoters is not a compromise of a biblical doctrine, then we have huge problem. The fact is that your contentions have been answered. There are also defective teachings on the Holy Spirit, on Scripture, on revelation, and on spiritual gifts. Those are not minor issues. They are essential issues. To assign it to "interpretation" is to admit the possibility of words meaning anything at all. I cannot side with that. I think God used words to communicate truth. It is my responsibility to find that truth and then stand for it. Everything is not essential to be sure. But I think minimalist Christianity (Mere Christianity in the words of Lewis) is not what God intended for the NT church.

As for secondary separation, I maintain that the views I hold are not the views you espouse. So call me different. I believe that the Bible teaches separation from false doctrine (it never identifies as it different than fundamental doctrine; it simply calls it contary and false) and from disobedient believers. When I separate from those who support false teaching or condone false teaching, I am not separating from them because of who they associate with. I am separating from them because they are disobedient. It is they who are the problem, not their associations. This is not too fine a distinction and it is absolutely essential to understand what I am saying. Whatever you were taught may well have been what they held; it is not what I hold.

I still think the bookstore thing is comparing apples to oranges ... but I doubt the time taken to make the case would be worth it.

 

Actually you mentioned one who possibly spoke in a Plano Texas event and that there was possibly a board member who you thought might be RC. So I am assuming you are using the phrase "a number of speakers" the same way FBC Hammond counts their bus ministry attendance

I think some of the other names you threw out such as John Maxwell, Max Lucado, and Jack Hayford are not even worth addressing. There is no possible way you can accuse these guys of not believing the gospel. On a side note, your statement on Maxwell was classic secondary separation (Maxwell has associated with such and such). Yet you continue to deny you hold secondary separation

These are issues where diversity of opinion must be allowed at some level. If you are talking about the divinity of the Holy Spirit, that is one thing, but if you are talking about whether someone is a cessationist, that is an entirely different matter where diversity must be allowed. Are you suggesting that every movement you support has a cookie cutter belief system on the spiritual gifts and the exercise of them? How would you know if they did? I am not saying these issues are minor to the point they are to be ignored or viewed as unimportant. What I am saying is that they are not a part of the fundamentals; therefore, there is a possibility you or I may be wrong and someone else may be right. It goes back to that we are finite issue.

I am not sure it is fair to bring issues like spiritual gifts into the picture in this discussion. Again the purpose of PK speakers is not to affirm or disprove those doctrinal issues which may be controversial. Their goal is to communicate biblical truth on what it means to be a godly man, husband, and father. Don't let me disappoint you here but John Maxwell may be able to communicate these truths as effectively as John MacArthur (regardless of what theological differences they may have). Spiritual maturity allows one to learn from the teachings of those with whom I may have some theological differences without compromising the essentials.

Let's go back to the PK belief statement. Besides the fact there is no RC speakers listed on their web site, can you please point out the fault with their statement of beliefs. Again, no one can speak at a PK conference w/o affirming what is in their belief statement. So can you show us biblically the tenets that are faulty?

One more point. Are you suggesting that those who hold a different theological point of view than I do (outside of the fundamentals) are living in a state of perpetual disobedience? If this is what you are proposing, then please detail for me where you stand on every theological issue b/c I do not want to be disobedient. And please let me know in light of 1 John how one can live in this perpetual state of disobedience and still be a child of God. IMHO, your line of reasoning in this area is arrogant and naive. Now don't try to go back to the Protestant/RCC debate here. You have suggested that doctrinal seperation must occur on matters of less significance that soteriology. To suggest that one who differs from your view of the spiritual gifts is living in disobedience puts a great burden on you to make sure you have it absolutely right. Good luck bro.

Again consistency is a tough bear to tackle.

 

I identified a number of speakers who deny the biblical doctrine of salvation (i.e, Roman Catholics).

Wait, did you identify some speakers who were Roman Catholic? Your statement make it sound like you had identified speakers who had verbally come out as opposing the doctrine of salvation. In actuality, all you did was identify some speakers who are members of a denomination that you disagree with.

 

Then tell me. How has PK made you a better husband/father ?

 

I think that they have taken morals already established in the Bible, and then added Ecumentasim.