Mark Dever Keynote Speaker at Lansdale Conference

Dr. Straub’s comments are spot on. I was one that sounded the bell loudly about Dr. Vaughn preaching with Schaap. Some of the same people who are banging this drum loudly were deadly silent about Schaap and Vaughn and they were equally as silent when Phelps preached with Fugate. This is simply disingenuious. People can have the soul liberty to speak with those men, but so does Doran with Dever (and Jordan for that matter). I have been to Dever’s church. I visited on a typical Sunday night. They take their worship very seriously at Capitol Hill - much more than many Fundamental churches do. They also take Church Disipline more serously than most Fundamental churches. God has used Dever to steer Capitol Hill in that direction.

I should add that Don has raised concerns about the areas I mentioned here, so I think he has earned the right to comment on Dever. :) I do also find it odd that Jordan is not being critiqued anywhere near the level that Doran and Bauder are - He is the one that actually scheduled Dever to speak!

@ Dr. Straub… I think it’s better to weigh arguments on their own merits rather than heed or discard them based on the source’s alleged credentials (though I’ll concede that somebody’s history in the “arguments” category might recommend not wasting the time). In this case, how does one’s occupation relate to his ability to think about the separation issues involved here? Can’t see how that holds any weight. There are situations where the ad hominem is valid but I don’t see how it is with this one.

@ JGearhart… the article I linked to was writted by Dr. George Houghton some years ago. I don’t know if he would hold to the same opinion today, but the key phrase is “willing to partner with conservative Southern Baptists.”
I’m not inclined to be critical of Calvary’s decision in this, but I do think this relationship with a Southern Baptist does raise important questions—as DrH’s article shows—and they are worth thinking about.
…and yes, everybody is qualified to think about them.

Outstanding!

I won’t say “I knew this would work,” but you better believe I’m thinking it! This looks like the beginning of a brave new world. Now all we need to do is add Mac to this line-up and the Kingdom will almost be here! I’m grateful to see the line up that’s here. I will work hard to be at this.

Straight Ahead!

jt

[Jeff Straub] I really am puzzled who get listened to on the internet … you can be a ministry drop-out, working in the secular world with a blog site and be certified to comment on a man like Mark Dever. Or you can be a pastor of a pretty small church but because you are all over the internet making comments and are blunt, then you are qualified to speak. Mark Dever has done more than most men for the cause of Christ. Do I like his view of eschatology … no. But he is not the enemy.

Dr. Straub,

Is this really the line of argumentation you wish to take on this?

1. Attack the people commenting because they may not be currently in ministry or have a big church? Wow.

2. Question the right of people to criticize Dever or the conference because “Mark Dever has done more than most men for the cause of Christ”? Seems like that same line of argument has been used over the years to defend everybody from Billy Graham to Jack Hyles. Surely you would recognize that “having done more for the cause of Christ” does not make one immune to criticism or immune from error.

[Jeff Straub] Where was the loud cry when John Vaughn spoke for Clarence Sexton and with Jack Schaap. Oh yea, and Mike Schrock was there also.

Where was the loud cry? Earlier in this thread, someone linked to the discussion on SI regarding it. Looking at the discussion, there was about 1 person (Dan P) defending it and the rest were generally agin’ it. The rest of the “Fundy Blogosphere” seemed to be pretty much against it as well. Compared to this thread, where those raising concerns are outnumbered by those defending the choice, I would think that there is/was a much bigger concern raised over that situation than this one. (And I would agree with the concern about speaking with Schaap, btw.)

This conference raises some concerns in my mind. I have great respect for Dr. Doran and I have read through his short version of his reasoning of this. I am still weighing it. For instance, I am not sure I would consider this primarily an academic conference, since its theme/title is “Advancing the Church” and the general focus of the NLC seems to have been on churches and pastors rather than academics over the years. Also, while I have often heard the “academic conference” argument in regards to sharing of podium and lean towards that view, I am not sure it is a slam-dunk that just because something qualifies as an academic conference that it somehow lessens the carefulness or thoroughness with which separation needs to be practiced.

Either way, even if I eventually come to the conclusion that this is a good thing, I don’t think the way to argue for that would be to essentially argue that 1) the people against it are unqualified hacks and 2) MD has done great things, so who are you do to disagree. (My simplistic hyperbole noted).

Just my thoughts,

Frank

Even if

[WilliamD] I for one am glad to see this breakthrough which was attempted last year with the Standpoint conference, but getting too many EV’s and Fundies together in the same room was problematic.

William,

One of the reasons we at Standpoint Conference (www.standpointconference.com) switched gears this time is because that ship has already sailed (as demonstrated by this thread). The new focus is to get everybody dealing with REAL issues — the theme of our conference for 2011.

Mike Durning

Random thoughts- I completely understand Dr. Straub’s frustration. I prefer to read information and ideas from credible sources, but the internet gives a level platform for all to present their ideas, regardless of a person’s authenticity, agenda, or integrity. This is both a bad thing and a good thing, because it does force us to deal with the issues themselves instead of personalities and pedigrees. Not fun, but I think necessary, mostly because of the problems in our IFB past with blind loyalty and hero worship. What’s difficult is when we have to use Proverbs 26:4 instead of Proverbs 26:5- we are sometimes afraid, I think, that if we don’t rebuke the kooks then they will be believed. But the only people who will believe the kooks are those who want to believe them. They are looking for something kooky to latch onto, because they can’t deal with truth, especially not Biblical truth. I completely believe that if someone wants truth, God through the Holy Spirit will guide them to truth. The rantings of imbeciles will not resonate with them, and they will continue their search for wisdom elsewhere. I have to trust that and let it go.

The up-side is that all the kooks tend to gather in one place, thus making them easy to identify and avoid. http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php] http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-alien010.gif

As far as who is holding hands with whom on various platforms, I believe it is important to note during the decision making process that many pastors don’t delve deeply into the teachings and personal conduct of men with national recognition in certain circles. Which is not a good thing, but there ya’ go. There is a transfer of trust that takes place when a respected man or institution ‘approves’ another man or institution. If Dr. Snodgrass has Dr. Lichtenstein on the platform, because I trust Dr. S, I now trust Dr. L- after all, Dr. Snodgrass would never steer me wrong, right? There are still people out there who have little knowledge of the true teachings and conduct of Hyles and Co.- hard to believe, but true- and they think that Hyles was a great man because they heard a couple of sermons and read a book and Dr. Snodgrass had him in his pulpit.

The purpose of the conference or fellowship is important IMO, and I think there is some differentiation between a primarily academic conference attended by pastors and teachers, even if the topics are theological issues, and a church-sponsored conference attended by lay people. Personally, I would attend them with a completely different frame of mind, just as I read books by various authors from a different perspective and level of credulity.

Aaron, I weary of the foolishness of the internet. Some guys (and perhaps ladies, though I am not shooting anyone in particular, but I’ll be an equal opportunity critic) seem to have nothing else to do but comment on everything. Like the rest of the world needs their opinion about everything. Often these discussions are DOMINATED by the same voices. It used to be that, in most cases, someone actually had to have something credible to say to be heard. Today, every Tom, Dick and Harry with a computer can start a blog and pontificate. They don’t actually have to be qualified to say something to merit being heard, they just have to have a computer keyboard. That alone is their entrance into the conversation. Ok, so the internet gives the little guy a voice … Why is it the big guys never participate in these discussions? Most are too busy in the Lord’s work.

Mark Dever does not care what we think of him. And frankly, why should he. What have we done to merit his consideration? Mark has done more to promote true biblical Baptist ministry in these days than most anyone I can think of. This doesn’t mean he is without flaw. Can this same argument be used of Billy Graham? Of course, but who is talking about Billy Graham? Most guys who criticize Dever, don’t know much about him except that he is a Southern Baptist. Truth is his preaching is substantive, whatever you think of his eschatological views, his church is top shelf, and his ministry to the wider church is outstanding. We all ought to read Polity or Nine Marks. I don’t know of a fundamentalist who is making the kind of impact that Mark is making.

Most of us need to put away our keyboards and go back to the work to which God has called us. Do we really need to weigh in on every conversation, multiple times? Would our sheep be better fed if we devoted more time to them? I really wonder how some guys feed their sheep with the amount of time they spend at their key boards. They troll the internet blogs entering into everyone’s conversation. Do we find Dever, Mohler, Piper, MacArthur doing this? They don’t need to. They actually have a voice, a legitimate voice.

Aaron, I’m not knocking SI here, but I am saying that I weary of these kinds of forums that give universal access to most any one with an opinion. Many guys have too much time on their hands. I just wonder if, when we stand before the judgment seat of Christ, we will not be severely rebuked for our misuse of time. We are to redeem the times. I am not sure that the internet is the appropriate place to do this. Why should we care what a guy thinks who has no real standing? Small churches are not in and of themselves a problem. Many faithful men has pastored them. But since most pastors of small churches have little help, they must do everything themselves, which means they have little time to waste. Let’s be about our business and give our keyboards a rest. Or maybe we just need to turn off the modium. :tired:

This conference raises some concerns in my mind. I have great respect for Dr. Doran and I have read through his short version of his reasoning of this. I am still weighing it. For instance, I am not sure I would consider this primarily an academic conference, since its theme/title is “Advancing the Church” and the general focus of the NLC seems to have been on churches and pastors rather than academics over the years. Also, while I have often heard the “academic conference” argument in regards to sharing of podium and lean towards that view, I am not sure it is a slam-dunk that just because something qualifies as an academic conference that it somehow lessens the carefulness or thoroughness with which separation needs to be practiced.

Although I still believe Sexton at BJU isn’t the same as Dever at ATC, this point is pretty solid. When I used to attend the Lansdale Conferences (haven’t been able to do so for about 5-7 years now), it did seem to be more of an academic type conference than a overall church strengthening thing…by which I mean that the audience was primarily aimed at pastors who were leading churches.

[Jay C.] When I used to attend the Lansdale Conferences (haven’t been able to do so for about 5-7 years now), it did seem to be more of an academic type conference than a overall church strengthening thing…by which I mean that the audience was primarily aimed at pastors who were leading churches.

Which is consistent with most of Mark’s speaking outside our local church. He is more likely to accept invitations to speak to pastors and elders or future pastors and elders (seminarians). In addition, he prioritizes speaking engagements to groups of pastors and elders to whom he has not previously spoken.

Of course, sometimes the people come to the speaker. We just finished another Weekender (I think a couple of folks mentioned these upthread) with 70 pastors, seminarians, and lay leaders attending. If anyone here signs up for a Weekender, let me know in advance and I’ll provide you a free place to stay if I’m able.

We’re getting off topic really, but… just one more? (Could start a thread on the value of internet discussions I suppose)

[Jeff S.] In most cases, someone actually had to have something credible to say to be heard. Today…

I don’t think that time ever existed. I share your annoyance at uninformed pontificators, but they have always been among us—they just did it in church newsletters, pamphlets, “newspapers,” etc. The communication threshold was higher, it’s true, but it was not higher in the “qualifications to hold an opinion” category. Rather, it was higher in the expense category—the communication scope-per-nickle ratio was higher.
Before Gutenberg much higher yet.The Internet is a continuation of the mass communication trend that began w/old Johannes.

So today, geniuses and idiots alike can get their notions out to potential millions for just about no money at all. Historically, you had to be successful enough at something to raise the funding. That is one big difference.

@Frank… about http://sharperiron.org/comment/18798#comment-18798] this : I don’t think Jeff is mainly talking about folks posting here. But the same arguments would apply. Either verifiable knowledgeability should be required in order to “be heard,” or it shouldn’t.
Personally, I think the should/shouldn’t is a moot question. The reality is, there is no such requirement anymore and folks will judge the quality of Internet opinion pretty much on a case by case basis.
But as in times past, people who have established a reputation will tend to be taken more seriously. In the days of pamphlets and newsletters, people did that too.

I still get stuff in the “snail mail” that goes straight to the can. And there must be zillions of blogs I never read… and a few I go out of my way to read because they have a track record of being worth the time.

[Aaron Blumer] And there must be zillions of blogs I never read… and a few I go out of my way to read because they have a track record of being worth the time.

This is where I think arguments like those of Dr. Straub are really way off the mark — the internet has made it easier to get a platform to speak, but not necessarily to be heard. It is too easy to ignore those you don’t believe are worth listening to, and that is true even here on SI. (As you scroll down through a list of comments, it’s very easy to ignore posts from certain readers if you wish to.)

Like you, I take the time to read certain blogs because I have found it worthwhile to do so, and ignore “zillions” of others either because they are not worth the time or because I haven’t heard of them.

I understand that there is phenomenon that allows certain sites to rise to the top in numbers of readers just by being contrary or by some other anti-establishment bent. And to an extent, that means they are being “heard,” but that doesn’t really give them influence among thoughtful people. Dr. Straub can ignore those voices just as easily as I can.

If you are talking about the “mob” in general, well, that has been a problem as long as there have been forms of government other than absolute dictatorship. Anyone who can mesmerize a crowd can get followers, but for such a movement to last beyond the charismatic leader, it usually has to have some substance, or it’s influence will die off after the leader is gone.

Some might argue that uneducated church members who are easy to influence usually listen to those who are not worth hearing, and that that wasn’t true in the past when the sources were more limited. I would argue that the problems were just different then, but that didn’t make those types of members any better members than they are now that they can listen to any source they wish. It just means that those who proclaim the truth must not assume a captive audience, and must be that much better at proclaiming and explaining the truth. Those who will not listen to that wouldn’t have done so in years past either.

[Don Johnson] But please, spare me the “this is an academic conference” baloney. It is the first fleshing out of what Doran and Bauder have been hinting at for some time. It is pure sophistry to hide behind the “academic” banner. FWIW, I have repeatedly disagreed with fundamentalist participation in ETS. I haven’t thought much about NANC, so no comment there.

In asking what “careful” fellowship would look like… well, I haven’t conceded that as an option. I have been critical of using this kind of language and have been asking what it means. This move seems to be the answer to my question. And yes, I do think it is careless, at best.

Don:

I think your point on “academic conference” is well taken. I do not know if Calvary would present it that way. For example, if Mark Dever speaks Wednesday night during the conference when the church usually meets for prayer meeting and church members attend, does that change anything? Although I’m adjunct professor at CBTS I am no longer at the church and have not been part of the discussion except early on. And I heartily supported the idea when it was raised. So I speak only for myself. But I understand that making an academic distinction might be difficult to support in the minds of many as a justification, if one is needed, for inviting Mark Dever. To many the distinction sounds artificial. I do not know if this “a fleshing out” of anything Bauder and Doran have hinted at. I may be wrong but I rather doubt that Tim Jordan consulted with them to see if they would speak or support him if he or the seminary invited Dever. However, either way, in my opinion, it’s not only good thing but pleasing to God to see his people come together in face of a world hostile to the gospel. Our disunity over our opinions and preferences and leaders has surely been an obstacle to the testimony of Christ’s Church. Let us disagree and do so vigorously when needed but let’s be careful to separate only when Scripture commands it.

Personally I wouldn’t have a problem with Dever speaking whether it was an academic or church context. I’d have him speak at our church but as a busy pastor I would imagine he doesn’t accept many Sunday speaking engagements. If we look for agreement on all associations, all positions, and make every doctrinal extrapolation essential matters. I still think many don’t get the difference between disobedience and disagreement. Disobedience to God’s Word not to ours. Is Mark Dever a disobedient brother? No more than you and me in some ways but not flagrantly as far as I know. Would I disagree with some of his statements and interpretations? Probably. But that happens whenever you have two people in the same room. IMO, the kind of fundamentalism which practices a separation which goes beyond Scripture is thankfully shrinking. It will always be around because there are always some who from their personal fiefdoms think they can determine for others all the bounds of fellowship and partnership in the gospel. And shades of Elijah, they and they alone stand true.

Steve

[size=8] *** Forum Director ****
Fixed quotation
**************************[/size]

[Steve Davis] I think your point on “academic conference” is well taken.

Thanks, Steve.

In my opinion it is at best a quasi-academic conference, but it really doesn’t matter either way. It is interesting that Dave in his justification post seems to concede the point (to some extent at least):

[Dave Doran] Since this is a conference connected to Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary, I take it to be mainly an educational/academic setting, but that is a point open to debate since it is closely connected to Calvary Baptist Church.

Yes, Dave says “mainly academic”, but he recognizes that it isn’t clearly a purely academic situation.

Regardless, whether academic or church based, it doesn’t matter to me. The question we need to address is whether it is appropriate to cooperate with evangelicals at all. I think Dever is a fine man and I am sure I would profit from his preaching. I have a couple of his books - though I don’t think he really articulates anything in them that I wasn’t taught at BJU. But Mark has ties with men I really can’t endorse. He supports Mark Driscoll’s Acts 29 organization. The broad compass of the SBC is problematic. I wish he would clearly distance himself from those ties and embrace a more separatistic approach. (I’m not holding my breath.)

[Steve Davis] Our disunity over our opinions and preferences and leaders has surely been an obstacle to the testimony of Christ’s Church. Let us disagree and do so vigorously when needed but let’s be careful to separate only when Scripture commands it.

Well, true, let’s only separate when Scripture demands it. But I am not calling for separation. I think one of the problems we have had in this discussion is a confusion of terms. Separation has been applied to every form of distancing that Fundamentalists have advocated. When it comes to a man like Dever, who I like and respect, it isn’t separation but non-cooperation that I advocate. I can profit from his ministry in some ways, use his materials, etc, but because of his associations, I don’t want to enter into joint ministry with him due to the other entanglements he is involved in.

Obviously the Calvary folks and Dave and Kevin think differently. It remains to be seen how others react.

This is where I think arguments like those of Dr. Straub are really way off the mark — the internet has made it easier to get a platform to speak, but not necessarily to be heard. It is too easy to ignore those you don’t believe are worth listening to, and that is true even here on SI. (As you scroll down through a list of comments, it’s very easy to ignore posts from certain readers if you wish to.)

Like you, I take the time to read certain blogs because I have found it worthwhile to do so, and ignore “zillions” of others either because they are not worth the time or because I haven’t heard of them.

I was actually prepared to make this argument…there are all kinds of blogs and things that I COULD follow, but simply can’t (won’t) spend a massive amount of time to follow everything. Frankly, I let SI / Facebook / Instapundit do that vetting for me (in some regards) in that I can peruse a bunch of blogs I follow via the Foundry, then click through to the individual posts if I think they merit my time. There are a few - very few (Pensees, Linscott’s blog, Pyromaniacs…) - that I’ll bookmark, but usually, if it’s worth commenting on, it winds up as a Filing or in someone else’s quote/thread. Of course, I also send quite a bit of suggestions to the Filings people, so that factors in as well.

Also, there are some people that I see posting (again, usually on SI) and I usually know that we’ll disagree on just about everything there is, so I don’t click through to the blog.

No, Aaron didn’t pay me to write that :)

[Jeff Straub] I really am puzzled who get listened to on the internet … you can be a ministry drop-out, working in the secular world with a blog site and be certified to comment on a man like Mark Dever. Or you can be a pastor of a pretty small church but because you are all over the internet making comments and are blunt, then you are qualified to speak. Mark Dever has done more than most men for the cause of Christ.

This is EXACTLY how I felt when Pastor Sweatt’s sermon at that regional FBF conference made all the blogs a while ago. People who were 1/2-1/3 his age were all over him in their blogs, people who had done waay less than he has done in the ministry, etc.