FBFI Annual Fellowship, Wednesday AM, June 17- A Liveblog Report

[Todd Mitchell] I am not a member of the FBFI, nor do I now have any intention to join. In addition to this episode, their preferred song leader, the staff evangelist for BJU, turned the podium into a circus ring, and in the men’s luncheon challenge first blamed us for declining Christian College enrollments, accusing us of not preaching the need for Christian College from the pulpits, then cracked the following joke: “Do you know the difference between a Nazi and a music major? About 45 degrees!” He demonstrated by holding up his hand in a stiff-arm Nazi salute, then drooping his wrist to ape a homosexual. This drew a roar of laughter from most of the pastors present.

So no, I have no intention to join the FBFI at this point. Therefore, I am not calling on the FBFI for any particular response. However, if the FBFI sweeps this under the rug, they are complicit in Mr. Congdon’s ongoing offense. It is that very complicity that I, as a registered attender, seek to avoid by publishing this.

I am shocked, appalled, and disgusted at what has transpired at the FBFI meeting if this is true [and it seems to be]. The episode involving Tom Congdon was bad enough, but that AND the above episode make it very clear to me that I want absolutely NO part of the FBFI after this. Any thought I ever had of ever joining the FBFI has been smashed to bits. I had hoped to get a subscription to Frontline, but there’s no way I could do so if this is what my money would go to.

People wonder why I listen to and endorse John MacArthur; Let me say that I’ll take his foibles and problems over this kind of behavior any day of the week. This would NEVER have happened at Shepherd’s Conference.

Gentlemen, if you look at Rob Congdon’s website, you will see that his statement of faith is sound. You will see that there are some very respected men on his Board of Reference. Does that not give anyone pause here?

I have spoken to Rob Congdon many times. I do not recognize the characterization here as representative of his teaching. I may not agree with everything he says, or with every conclusion he draws about current trends, but Rob Congdon is not a lunatic. That men like Whitcomb, Showers, Schroeder, and Boreland agreed to serve on his board of reference should have been a clue. Perhaps the fact that men like John Vaughn have allowed him a forum should provide another clue.

Some have said that this calls the credibility of the FBFI into question. Perhaps some have forgotten that in the mouth of two or three witnesses is a thing established, and one person’s characterization is not sufficient grounds to publicly accuse someone of shoddy research, mischaracterization, etc, or to call him a Wacko Windbag. Perhaps it is the credibility of Internet ravings based on limited evidence which should be discussed.

I am certain Rob Congdon gets some things wrong. To address Roger Carlson’s good question, I am certain that he accepts speaking engagements which I would not — but then, he’s in a very different type of ministry from mine, too, and I’ll let the Lord sort that one out.

But I am about 99% certain that the characterization above is not truly representative of Dr. Congdon’s message, though it undoubtedly contains some things he said. And I am also about 99% certain that if it were truly representative, some of the FBFI men would condemn it rather than endorse it.

JG,

While I did not attend the workshop myself, I read the handout and I was in the “circle” of conversation with other who had attended the workshop. I have absolutely no reason to question the veracity Todd’s characterization. I hope that others will clarify (or verify) Todd’s assessment with their firsthand accounts.

On a separate note, I take Bob T’s monikers as hyperbole more than anything.

To address Roger Carlson’s good question, I am certain that he accepts speaking engagements which I would not — but then, he’s in a very different type of ministry from mine, too, and I’ll let the Lord sort that one out.

Is this also true about Al Mohler, who is in a very different type of ministry? Or John MacArthur who is in a very different type of ministry?

[Matthew Olmstead] JG,

While I did not attend the workshop myself, I read the handout and I was in the “circle” of conversation with other who had attended the workshop. I have absolutely no reason to question the veracity Todd’s characterization. I hope that others will clarify (or verify) Todd’s assessment with their firsthand accounts.

On a separate note, I take Bob T’s monikers as hyperbole more than anything.

I’m not sure the use of such hyperbole is consistent with Biblical admonitions.

I hope others will clarify, too. But until they have actually done so, many of the comments on this thread are at best premature.

I read JG’s response about Dr. Congdon. Almost nobody is really as bad as they can be made to sound. However, this raises an interesting question. Do events like this bring out the worst in some people, because they think that is what they are supposed to do? Throwing raw meat always gets the dogs riled up.

[Larry]

To address Roger Carlson’s good question, I am certain that he accepts speaking engagements which I would not — but then, he’s in a very different type of ministry from mine, too, and I’ll let the Lord sort that one out.

Is this also true about Al Mohler, who is in a very different type of ministry? Or John MacArthur who is in a very different type of ministry?

Interesting question. Al Mohler — participation in a Billy Graham campaign. To my knowledge, Rob Congdon has done nothing approaching that. I’m not sure I see the equivalence.

A better comparison to Rob would be someone like Ken Ham, in that both teach on a very targeted area (Ken on Creation, Rob on Dispensationalism and Current Trends) which is potentially of great benefit to both fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals. It does not necessarily imply endorsement of a church for them to go into it, at least not to the same extent as it might for a visiting pastor/missionary, to whom a wide range of topics are presumably open. I am not prepared to say that Ken Ham or Rob Congdon should draw the line at the same place John MacArthur or I should.

To varying extents, all of these men cross lines that I am persuaded it would be better if they didn’t. I don’t believe Rob does so to anywhere near the extent the others do — but I’m not tracking itineraries. Like I said, I’ll let the Lord sort that one out.

[JG]

I have spoken to Rob Congdon many times. I do not recognize the characterization here as representative of his teaching. I may not agree with everything he says, or with every conclusion he draws about current trends, but Rob Congdon is not a lunatic. That men like Whitcomb, Showers, Schroeder, and Boreland agreed to serve on his board of reference should have been a clue. Perhaps the fact that men like John Vaughn have allowed him a forum should provide another clue.

Perhaps you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. Rather than several of the men on Congdon’s Board of Reference giving credibility to his aberrant misrepresentations, it would be expedient to question the credibility of the men who commend his views and ministry.

If these are the kinds of conspiracy theories and misrepresentations Whitcomb and Showers commend, it will affect how I view their respective ministries. Of all people, fundies should understand the implications of not separating themselves from those who purport this kind of unfounded and untrue verbiage.

[JG] But I am about 99% certain that the characterization above is not truly representative of Dr. Congdon’s message, though it undoubtedly contains some things he said. And I am also about 99% certain that if it were truly representative, some of the FBFI men would condemn it rather than endorse it.

Are you implying that Todd Mitchell is distorting the truth, or is being untruthful? That is a serious accusation to make against a brother.

On the other hand, Congdon’s misrepresentations have been proven untrue and unfounded by Piper’s own position papers.

Frankly, I am a bit surprised the SI moderators have let your accusation go.

Gentlemen,

I guess I am getting too old and impatient for these online encounters. However, I have read his book. I should have made my familiarity with Robert Congdon clear.

What book did I read?

The one written and self published by Robert Congdon titled; “The European Union and the Supra Religion.” It is subtitled”Setting the Stage for the final act.” A Biblical perspective.” He states some plausible scenarios with which I would agree as possible from the standpoint of the prophecies of Daniel and a future revised Roman Empire. However, he goes into great details regarding some conspiracy theories and alleged groups and unions that have no basis in history and rest on the same kind of pseudo history as the DeVinci Code.

He does not mention John Piper or the applications that are asserted in the report of Congdon’s presentation at FBFI. However, this book has some fairly “wacko” claims that make the report of the FBFI presentation believable.

And we have those who want to make an issue of a poster’s use of language, and make an unkind “off topic attack” on a poster. May I answer by stating that the use of a mild but direct picturesque label such as “wacko windbag” of those who misuse God’s truth in an obvious and extreme way is mild compared to the use of such a label as “Whitewashed Sepulchers” used by another who was known for his proper (and sinless) behaviour in all circumstances.

However, I am no defender of John Piper. As I have stated elsewhere, he does teach heresy (yes, the H word) regarding the basic doctrine of Justification. This is not a wild accusation. It is according to what he clearly has stated regarding the Christian at the Judgment seat of Christ and what he states in his new book “The future of Justification,” He teaches that there is a”future final Justification” which is to confirm our having being Justified. It is based on an examination of our works. He states that without “that validating transformation, there will be no future salvation.” I can understand some young men liking and being captivated by some of what John Piper writes. However, there is no excuse for not being aware of all that is taught and being silent regarding major doctrinal deviations. However, this has nothing to do with the Congdon scenario.

[KenFields] Frankly, I am a bit surprised the SI moderators have let your accusation go.

**** Forum Director Comment ****

I’m going to let JG’s comments stand …. because I don’t see it as an accusation but rather the raising of doubt. AND

knowing Todd Mitchell personally I find him to be a completely credible witness

AND we asked for reporting from the FBFI conference and we got it. So thanks Todd and others for your contributions

******************************************

Brother Congdon or anyone who attended that breakout session is welcome to refute or provide a different perspective on Todd’ comments.

[JG] Some have said that this calls the credibility of the FBFI into question. Perhaps some have forgotten that in the mouth of two or three witnesses is a thing established, and one person’s characterization is not sufficient grounds to publicly accuse someone of shoddy research, mischaracterization, etc, or to call him a Wacko Windbag. Perhaps it is the credibility of Internet ravings based on limited evidence which should be discussed.

JG, there are already at least two or three eyewitnesses to what happened, and there in links to the original documents that prove that he was [at the very best] ruthlessly slipshod in what he said. I’m sure that more of what was said at that session will come out. So now that your criterion has been met, how should be proceed? I’d like to know.

It seems like we’re in another, eerily similar, situation to the Sweatt kerfuffle. How do you think we should proceed from here? Or the next time it happens, or the time after that? When do we finally stand up and denounce brothers who are just flat out wrong? Especially when they’re wrong on a platform like the FBFI National Meeting?

JG,

Thanks for answering my question. I agree with you. But many or our Fundamental bretheran are not as gracious. I think the comparison to Cogdon should be somewhere between Mohler and Ham. I still believe there is hypocrisy here by the FBF. Cogdon seems to have done a conference more than once with a person who worked for Jack Wyrtsen personally and speaks at places all over the landscape. What if is expertise were something different? And what if he teamed up with Dever for something? I don’t think there would be the same deference shown. But, again, I do share your view. My problem is that many in the FBFI do not, and yet seem to be applying a double standard.

As to your point about those on Cogdon’s board. I, too was suprised. I am willing to let more info come out. But I would wonder if some of these “Da Vinci code/Oliver Stone” conspiracies were not present when these men signed on? I think that is highly plausible.

Dr. Congdon’s thesis was clearly understandable. For those of you who struggled to see the connection between the driving force behind the “Young, Restless and Reformed” and the European Union let me explain. The connection is found in relationships, and commonality with shared agendas. Piper is a strong friend and advocate of Mark Driscoll, who in his CT article 2006 put Piper in the Emergent group along with himself in his circle of “new” friends. The Emergents are clearly driven by “Kingdom Now” theology (read Faith Undone by Roger Oakland) along with sharing and networking in all areas of faith. The new face of New Evangelicalism is the Emergent Church. Does Ecumenicism sound familiar? Close ties with the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church, and New Evangelicals is old news. The Emergents ing general have no problems with fellowship in these circles. While Piper may be a far step away from such fellowship, his fellowship with Driscoll makes that distance questionable at best.

Driscoll left the Emergent Church movement. One of the people who wrote against it was D.A Carson whom Piper had at his conference. I am not a Driscoll fan nor a Piper fan. I have and do appreciate some of what they both do and dislike other things. But to draw this “clear” picture is like the 9-11 conspiracy people saying George Bush ordered the attack and blew up building 7. Yes, the Emergents are driven by “Kingdom Now” but Piper and others are driven by “already, not yet.” Which by the way was has been part of Fundamentalism from the beginning. While most Fundamentalists were Premil and Pre trib, others were not. To make your millenial position a Fundamental of the faith is a deviation from what Fundamentalism is and was. I should had that I am Premil and Pre trib.