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

Musgrave's church website gives more information on the ministry he presented in his workshop.

As a first-time attender at an FBFI gathering, I suspect I have received a rather strong dose of the Fundamentalism Being Saved. Having never been exposed to Fundamentalism outside of Minnesota (and for that matter, really knowing little about Fundamentalism outside of Fourth Baptist Church/Central Baptist Theological Seminary), it has been quite an eye-opener. Since I attended a breakout session that Pastor Greg Linscott missed (and for an even more important reason, as you will see), I'll chip in by sharing it here to the best of my ability.

Having heard high praise from the podium about Robert Congdon's presentation on the Emergent Church, I decided to attend. Arriving early, I sat down and listened to the light conversation that preceded the session. It is worth mentioning because it might help you evaluate Mr. Congdon's credibility. He said, "Technically, what I'm about to say is illegal." I inquired what he meant, and he explained that even to quote John 14:6 is illegal. When I asked what law he would violate, he said that it would be "incitement." As a former cop, I can tell you with confidence that this is absurd.

The thesis of Mr. Congdon's presentation was that "Emergents, New Calvinists, Neo-Calvinists, Inter-Faith movements, the Insider movement, the non-Emergent Emergents, and others" are "tied into a single movement toward a worldwide government and worldwide union of religions."

For the rest of his presentation, Mr. Congdon treated these groups as one. He explained that they offer young people an alternative to the shallow teaching and "couch-potato" Christianity that has driven them away from other churches. They prefer preaching from the gospels, but ignore the epistles and the book of Revelation, believing that the things in the book of Revelation have already happened.

Mr. Congdon showed a picture of a windmill with each fan blade labeled in turn: New Calvinism, Emergents, Post-Moderns, and one other group I didn't catch. He said that we must not tilt at the windmill, but go after the real problem. He gave the example of hair length and music. "We lost the battle on those," he explained, because the real issues weren't addressed. What is the real issue today? "Kingdom-Now."

Kingdom-Now, he explained, is the belief that the Kingdom exists today. He said that Post-Millenialism and Amillenialism have merged so that you can't tell them apart anymore. Now, his teaching was a bit dilatory, so what follows might seem a bit disjointed. He explained that 100 years ago he could have gotten along fine with a Reformed theologian, but things have changed. What caused the change? The formation of the State of Israel in 1948. This created a problem for the Reformed theologians, he explained, because they never thought there was a future for Israel. Somewhere in here he pointed out that the reason Christianity has declined in England is because Martin Lloyd-Jones mounted an attack on Premillenialism. These teachers aid Satan, he explains:

Quote:

When individuals receive Christ, Satan strives to hinder their spiritual growth and understanding of their future role. He is aided by false teachers who deny a future, literal kingdom. This teaching is one of the driving force [sic ] leading to apostasy in the Church in the Last Days.

Mr. Congdon quoted "Emergent" Brian McLaren, then "New-Calvinist" John Piper, on the kingdom. He said this appeals to our youth, and said, "These guys have the appearance of godliness . . . "

Now we get to the really fantastic part, the part where he connects John Piper with environmentalists, the European Union, and One-World Government. All of these Kingdom-Now teachers appeal to today's youth, who have a "social conscience," by addressing environmental concerns. This is just what the European Union wants, he explained, because the European Union decided that the way to take over the world is with environmental and economic issues. I can't remember just how Rick Warren and Tony Blair factor into this, but somehow they do. Anyhow, Satan is using McLaren, Piper, et al to lure unsuspecting youths into the snares of the EU with the appeal of environmental responsibility, and this will usher in One-World Government.

After the presentation I approached Mr. Congdon and asked, "Do you know what John Piper says about the future salvation, upon the return of Christ, of all people alive on earth with Jewish blood in their veins?" He said that he was "still digging" and did not know, but "assumed" Piper denied it. I informed him that in fact John Piper teaches that at the return of Christ, every single ethnic Israelite alive will be saved. He instantly offered some explanation that had to do with Charismatic leanings and using this for their purposes, but I confess it was beyond my powers of comprehension.

I was surprised by how much Mr. Congdon singled out John Piper and "New Calvinism" in this presentation (which was on the Emergent Church, right?). But what astonished me even more than this singularly ill-informed, illogical, and potentially slanderous (or even libelous -- there was a handout) attack on John Piper was how it fit so seamlessly into the FBFI Annual Conference. It did not make a splash, not even a ripple.

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.

Todd Mitchell, Pastor
First Baptist Church, Granite Falls, MN
http://www.firstbaptistgranitefalls.org

Todd Mitchell wrote:

Kingdom-Now, he explained, is the belief that the Kingdom exists today. He said that Post-Millenialism and Amillenialism have merged so that you can't tell them apart anymore. Now, his teaching was a bit dilatory, so what follows might seem a bit disjointed. He explained that 100 years ago he could have gotten along fine with a Reformed theologian, but things have changed. What caused the change? The formation of the State of Israel in 1948. This created a problem for the Reformed theologians, he explained, because they never thought there was a future for Israel. Somewhere in here he pointed out that the reason Christianity has declined in England is because Martin Lloyd-Jones mounted an attack on Premillenialism ...

Mr. Congdon quoted "Emergent" Brian McLaren, then "New-Calvinist" John Piper, on the kingdom. He said this appeals to our youth, and said, "These guys have the appearance of godliness . . . "

Now we get to the really fantastic part, the part where he connects John Piper with environmentalists, the European Union, and One-World Government. All of these Kingdom-Now teachers appeal to today's youth, who have a "social conscience," by addressing environmental concerns. This is just what the European Union wants, he explained, because the European Union decided that the way to take over the world is with environmental and economic issues. I can't remember just how Rick Warren and Tony Blair factor into this, but somehow they do. Anyhow, Satan is using McLaren, Piper, et al to lure unsuspecting youths into the snares of the EU with the appeal of environmental responsibility, and this will usher in One-World Government.

After the presentation I approached Mr. Congdon and asked, "Do you know what John Piper says about the future salvation, upon the return of Christ, of all people alive on earth with Jewish blood in their veins?" He said that he was "still digging" and did not know, but "assumed" Piper denied it. I informed him that in fact John Piper teaches that at the return of Christ, every single ethnic Israelite alive will be saved. He instantly offered some explanation that had to do with Charismatic leanings and using this for their purposes, but I confess it was beyond my powers of comprehension.

It appears Mr. Congdon has either failed in his research, or he is badly misrepresenting others' views.

John Piper is a premillennialist who believes in a future kingdom, and the spiritual restoration of Israel. He is post-trib (like Spurgeon); but he is a premillennialist. See here: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/TopicIndex/29_End_Times__Retu..., and here: http://www.desiringgod.org/ResourceLibrary/Articles/ByDate/1987/1493_Def...

Shoddy research or mischaracterization quickly destroys a fundamentalist's (and an association's) credibility.

Thanks for the insight. What a convoluted mess.

An example of a fundamentalism not worth saving!

Todd,

I laughed and then I cried. Oliver Stone can't hold a candle to this man with conspiracy theories. What a bizzare hour that must have been for you.

In case you're wondering who Robert Congdon is: http://www.internetbibleinstitute.com/
Interesting to note his top 20 book recommendations: http://www.internetbibleinstitute.com/library/cardfile.htm
Unfortunately, there's not much bio info.

BryanBice wrote:

In case you're wondering who Robert Congdon is: http://www.internetbibleinstitute.com/
Interesting to note his top 20 book recommendations: http://www.internetbibleinstitute.com/library/cardfile.htm
Unfortunately, there's not much bio info.

According to Congdon's website, his "Board of Reference" includes some interesting dispy names: http://www.internetbibleinstitute.com/CMI/cmiinfo.htm

Quote:

Dr. Stephen Boreland - Pastor, Ballyclare Baptist Church, Northern Ireland
Pastor Tim Heijermans - Pastor, Christian Community Church, Luxembourg
Dr. Tommy Ice - Bible teacher, author, Pre-Trib Study Group, Virginia, USA
Pastor Steve Schroeder - Pastor, New Life Baptist Church, Aurora, Illinois, USA
Dr. Bill Schroeder - Assistant Pastor, New Life Baptist Church, Aurora, Illinois, USA
Dr. Renald Showers - Bible teacher, author, The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc.
Dr. Dale Steenhoven - Pastor, Will County Baptist Church, Joliet, Illinois, USA
Dr. John Whitcomb - Bible teacher, author, Whitcomb Ministries, Inc.

Do these men subscribe to Congdon's character misrepresentations and aberrant conspiracy theories?

After reviewing Cogdon's site, I am left with many questions. Here is one. Why is the FBFI having a man do a workshop who may be a Fundamentalist, but preaches at conferences with known Evangelicals like Jimmy DeYoung? Or more pointedly, why is it wrong for YF to go hear Dever, et. al. preach but it is OK for FBFI workshop speakers to preach with CE's?

It seems Mr. Congdon is, in fact, a proponent of a "Dispensationalism Not Worth Saving." By this, I mean a group that apparently cannot distinguish between Progressive Dispensationalists, Covenant Premillenialists, Amillennialists, Post-Millenialists, and various forms of non-Dispensational Premillennialists (i.e., Carson, Moo), ALL OF WHOM agree that the kingdom did come in some sense in the past, is coming now, and is still coming in other senses in the future.

Apparently, this worldwide conspiracy was shared by every single Christian recorded since Justin Martyr until John Darby, and by the vast majority thereafter. He is certainly shrewd to have uncovered such a widespread plot.

In my prior posts regarding the Sweatt v. Bauder Internet match I mentioned that the FBFI had little influence in overall Fundamentalism. It does appear to have some very good men who join. However it is easier to get an FBFI membership than a COSTCO membership and there is more inside that is needful and desirable at COSTCO. I joined the FBFI for one year and then let the membership drop after attending one regional meeting. The good men are coupled with many who represent churches that have shallow preaching and unbiblical perspectives. There also is often connection to the WWF's( Wacko Windbag Fundamentalists). Robert Congdon is not a member of the FBFI but some people of FBFI influence must have thought enough of his ministry and ideas to invite him to the national meeting.

I would hope that any young Fundamentalists will understand the lack of visibility of the FBFI in most of the parts of the country. It is a wrongly organized group of individual Pastors and others in ministry. It is hanging on from the old Northern Baptist Fundamentalists who organized the group while still in the NBC. It should have dissolved when the CBFMS and then the CBA was formed. Here in Southern California they have five members representing three churches plus three stationed military chaplains. The churches represented are all under 100 and two may be less than 50. They have more representation in Northern California - about 30 men and less churches. The churches are all small. In Oregon they have 2 members and 14 in Washington. All from very small churches. So here on the West coast they are essentially an extremely small group representing a failed and shrinking type of Fundamentalism.

The latest Bauder v. Sweatt problem was essentially an Internet exchange that effected only those who wanted to get involved. One Internet blogger / stalker attempted to make a big issue out of the difference and put himself in it by calling for Bauder's cancellation as a speaker. This was nothing but an extremist Fundamentalist exercising poor discernment and seeking to cause division,

The ideals of Biblical standards and practices that characterize the Christianity called Fundamentalism must be set apart from various groups and practices within Fundamentalism. Some groups may disappoint. That does not alter Biblical standards and practices. A young Fundamentalist may have good reason to leave a church or group. That does not abrogate their responsibility to uphold and seek out that which is Biblical.

So as an older guy, my advice to some others, who may be younger, is to get this FBFI brush up in perspective. It is revealing of differences but not relevant to the being and practice of meaningful ideas concerning Biblical Evangelical Fundamentalism. The WWFs will always be around. There are also WWEs (Wacko Windbag Evangelicals) and SWWLs (Super Wacko Windbag Liberals). Just don't be blown away by the wind.

Bob T. wrote:

SNIP
I would hope that any young Fundamentalists will understand the lack of visibility of the FBFI in most of the parts of the country. It is a wrongly organized group of individual Pastors and others in ministry. It is hanging on from the old Northern Baptist Fundamentalists who organized the group while still in the NBC. It should have dissolved when the CBFMS and then the CBA was formed. Here in Southern California they have five members representing three churches plus three stationed military chaplains. The churches represented are all under 100 and two may be less than 50. They have more representation in Northern California - about 30 men and less churches. The churches are all small. In Oregon they have 2 members and 14 in Washington. All from very small churches. So here on the West coast they are essentially an extremely small group representing a failed and shrinking type of Fundamentalism. SNIP.

Jim Peet wrote:

An example of a fundamentalism not worth saving!

IMHO this may be said of the FBFI.

Bob T. wrote:

Jim Peet wrote:

An example of a fundamentalism not worth saving!

IMHO this may be said of the FBFI.

Clarification for those who perhaps did not see the context : I was only referring to Mr. Congdon's presentation (breakout session, "The Gospel Versus the Apostasy" )

Jim Peet wrote:

Bob T. wrote:

Jim Peet wrote:

An example of a fundamentalism not worth saving!

IMHO this may be said of the FBFI.

Clarification for those who perhaps did not see the context : I was only referring to Mr. Congdon's presentation (breakout session, "The Gospel Versus the Apostasy" )

How disappointing, Jim.

I was looking forward to you calling for the closing of the FBF doors ... and the ensuing controversy!

Todd Mitchell wrote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

Matthew Olmstead wrote:

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 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 wrote:

Quote:

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?

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

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.