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

 (Greg Linscott Reporting)

One of the benefits of this time thus far has been the friendship experiences. I have traveled from Minnesota with some good brothers in the Lord- BWM Missionary Roberto Coelho (supported by our church in Marshall), Pastor Todd Mitchell of First Baptist of Granite Falls, and Pastor Tim Barr of  First Baptist of Adrian. I have made some other connections here too, including SI Blogrollers Scott Aniol and Bob Bixby, and SI members JP Hansen and Matt Olmstead. Our host here in the Chicago area has been SI member Chuck Hervas. He provided us with great opportunity for conversation that lasted well into the wee hours. It was a short night!
 
The general sessions on Wednesday proved quite profitable. Dr. John Hartog III of Faith Baptist Church in Cambridge, IA spoke on the “Gospel of God” from 1 Thessalonians 2, providing quality exegesis anchored in the text. The message Dr. Kevin Bauder of Central Seminary (MN) delivered defined and developed the significance of several terms crucial to the gospel, utilizing texts from Romans. Both sermons successfully remained on target and avoided even a cursory hint of the outside controversy that has developed here on SI and elsewhere in the blogosphere. A few more details are available @ sifilings on Twitter, as are some observations from Evangelist Wayne Van Gelderen’s workshop session “Factors Hindering Evangelism in Fundamentalism.”
 
We will have more details and reflections as the day moves on.
 
–––––
 
(Matt Olmstead Reporting)
 

Seeing Lives Transformed by the Gospel - Jeff Musgrave

Summary from the conference booklet: Jesus is the answer for transformed living, and discipleship is the method that He designed to accomplish getting men to Him. We often say, “This is about a relationship with God, not a religion,” but are we effectively introducing men to God and showing them how to live in a vibrant relationship with Him?

Summary of the workshop: The session was an parred down presentation of The Exchange, Musgrave’s discipleship ministry.

Musgrave argued that there is a circle of ministry that needs to take place in our churches. An individual, once saved, ought to be discipled and trained into ministry (Saved - Discipled - Trained into ministry). His remarks evidenced both his burden for evangelism (his used the term ‘soul-winning’) and his passion for training others to disciple.

Below is a summary outline of the content of the session, which is his the outline he uses to present the gospel to an unsaved person.

I. The Gift of the Exchange

A. God is a Divine Person (he is knowable)

Presentation of who God is and how he looks at sin. God is holy and cannot tolerate sin, just and cannot overlook sin, loving and has provided a gift to me (the sinner), and gracious, offering salvation as a gift.

B. The lost man has a need.

This need is internal; man also has internal evidence of God, who makes divine appointments for the unsaved.

C. I have a regenerated spirit.

When we are saved, we realize the futility of my self (using his alliterated points), the fulness of my savior, the finality of my surrender, the filling of the Spirit, and the fruitfulness of my service

II. The Process of the Exchange

A. The Model - Acts 11:19-26

Musgrave sees four elements of discipleship in this passage. Conversation—we reason with the lost; evangelization—we give them the gospel; the assimilation—the saved need to be brought into the fellowship, but slowly. we cannot expect them to grow immediately. We need to be willing to take the “food” to them. Finally, indoctrination, training them up in the faith.

B. The Method - II Timothy 2:1-2; 25-26

 

SharperIron Forums: 
11956 reads

There are 48 Comments

Matthew Olmstead's picture

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

Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.

Todd Mitchell's picture

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

KenFields's picture

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.

Ken Fields

BryanBice's picture

Thanks for the insight. What a convoluted mess.

rogercarlson's picture

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.

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

KenFields's picture

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?

Ken Fields

rogercarlson's picture

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?

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

Charlie's picture

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.

My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com

Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin

Bob T.'s picture

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.

Rob Fall's picture

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.
One does well to remember it's not the number in a given directory, but how many are on the mailing list. I would dare say the NorCal numbers are larger than those you cite. However, the larger Fundamental Baptist churches that don't attend the NorCal FBF meetings are ones you'd have troubles with. Questions about it being wrongly organized or disolving it with the birth of the CBA and CBFMS are bettered discussed elswhere here on SI.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

Bob T.'s picture

Jim Peet wrote:
An example of a fundamentalism not worth saving!

IMHO this may be said of the FBFI.

KenFields's picture

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! Wink

Ken Fields

Jay's picture

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.


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.

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

JG's picture

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.

Matthew Olmstead's picture

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.

Father of three, husband of one, servant of the Lord Jesus Christ. I blog at mattolmstead.com.

Larry's picture

Moderator

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?

JG's picture

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'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.

Bob Fuller's picture

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.

Bob Fuller
Always Forward

JG's picture

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?

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.

KenFields's picture

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.

Ken Fields

KenFields's picture

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.

Ken Fields

Bob T.'s picture

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.

Jim's picture

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.

Jay's picture

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.
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?

"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells

rogercarlson's picture

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.

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

DMLandon's picture

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.

What is your Raison D'etre?

rogercarlson's picture

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.

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

JG's picture

KenFields wrote:
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.


The Internet is a lovely place.

Perhaps we might consider the possibility that Todd Mitchell was mistaken.

We might consider the possibility that Rob Congdon was unclear in his presentation on some points, and this contributed to Todd Mitchell being mistaken on other points.

We might consider the possibility that Rob Congdon has spent many years in Europe, where his statement about "incitement" contains a lot of truth, and that Todd Mitchell's perception of his presentation was skewed by that statement. His own account indicates that the "incitement" comment had him extremely skeptical from the beginning, and the one who is expecting errors will hear things in a way that confirms his expectation -- so that is certainly a possibility.

There are other possibilities as well, but little need to elaborate extensively. There are many possibilities here besides dishonesty.

JG's picture

Todd Mitchell wrote:
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.

Here is an example. Did Rob Congdon say this will usher in One-World Government? Really?

Unless Rob has changed his views very, very significantly, he believes One-World Government is coming in with Antichrist, not with humanistic environmentalism and the EU.

But he does believe that the underlying philosophy of the EU is working toward that goal, and that secular-humanist environmentalism (one of the great gods of this day) is being used to further it. (Of course, so does anyone who lives in Europe and is paying attention at all, including many who aren't believers. Will the EU accomplish that goal? Only if Antichrist comes. Otherwise, it will probably fragment and blow up in an ugly war.) II Thessalonians 2 tells us that the mystery of iniquity is working even now. We should not be surprised to see attempts in the world today to accomplish that which will really come to fruition in Antichrist.

Now, if Rob Congdon was discussing that, it is very easy to see how Todd Mitchell could have reported what he did, honestly believing that is what was said, without it being truly representative.

JG's picture

rogercarlson wrote:
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.

Thanks, Roger.

Rob Congdon's doctrinal statement includes a section specifically on separation:

Quote:
We believe that at the point of salvation, all believers are positionally set apart (sanctified) spiritually unto the Lord. There then follows a progressive sanctification in which the believer must learn to discern godly living from ungodly (Heb. 5:14). Part of this discernment is seen in separation from worldly and sinful practices which are diametrically opposed to the Lord’s plan and purposes (Rom. 6:19-20; 1 Cor. 6:19-20; 1 John 2:15-17).

Additionally, the believer must separate from apostasy and unbelief. Therefore, we will not knowingly associate with unbelief in ministry, worship, or by ecumenical activities (2 Cor. 6:14-18; 1 Tim. 6:3-5; 2 Tim. 2:19-22, 3:1-5; Amos 3:3). Separation from those who are not walking according to truth deters the leavening effect of compromise, and gives faithful warning to erring brothers (Rom. 16:17; Gal. 2:9-11:1; 1 Cor. 15:33; 2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; 2 John 10-11).

Perhaps a very significant difference for me between Rob and men like Ken Ham is that last sentence. Rob specifically states, and sometimes emphasizes in his teaching, that we need to separate from error and compromise in erring brothers. Though he may draw the line differently than you or I, he draws the line, and takes the Biblical principle seriously.

DMLandon's picture

Roger, "To make your millenial position a Fundamental of the faith is a deviation from what Fundamentalism is and was." comment is historically inaccurate. The Premil position was Fundamental number XIV of the Niagara Creed in 1878 (Dr. Beale's book "In Pursuit of Purity". We seemed to have dropped a few fundamentals since then catering to the Least Common Denominator.

What is your Raison D'etre?

BryanBice's picture

DMLandon wrote:
Roger, "To make your millenial position a Fundamental of the faith is a deviation from what Fundamentalism is and was." comment is historically inaccurate. The Premil position was Fundamental number XIV of the Niagara Creed in 1878 (Dr. Beale's book "In Pursuit of Purity". We seemed to have dropped a few fundamentals since then catering to the Least Common Denominator.

While the Niagara Creed did indeed affirm a premil position, it's important to realize:
1) the framers didn't characterize it as a "fundamental of the faith," but as a position in which they believed--part of a Statement of Faith. The various items in the 14-point creed were "points" of belief held by that particular group or segment of biblical Christianity.
2) The Niagara Creed was a product of the Niagara Bible Conference, a decidedly dispensationalist gathering. It wasn't by any means an attempt to be a "Church Council" or even representative of what historic biblical Christianity always believed as fundamental and essential. Its purpose was decidedly to promote the relatively recently "discovered" eschatological positions.
3) The leadership doesn't seem to have had the attitude that "we're the only ones, and if you don't believe like us, you're a disobedient brother."

So, in fact, Roger was quite right.

When endeavoring to define "the fundamentals," by the way, it's not looking for the "least common denominator." That has a strongly negative connotation, doesn't it? As I understand it, the objective is, instead, seeking to define what doctrines must be held, without which biblical Christian faith would crumble.

Brian Jo's picture

Thank you, brother Byce. I agree.
To those who hold to Premillennialism as a fundamental of the faith– tell me, has a non-premillennialist forsaken the faith? If not, it's not a fundamental.

rogercarlson's picture

Sorry I was unclear, but Bryan's characterization is what I was going for.

JG.,

Again I agree with you. And I have no problem with Cogdon's association per se. But if you look at the example I gave (Dever), he would fit all of the qualifications of Cogdon's too. He is seperated and takes church discipline more seriously than many of our fellow IFB churches do. But I firmly believe if there was someone that the FBF was going to have speak, they would rescind the invitation if the Fundamentalist brother were speaking with Dever. That is the apparant double standard that I am inquiring about.

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

KenFields's picture

JG wrote:
The Internet is a lovely place.

Perhaps we might consider the possibility that Todd Mitchell was mistaken.

We might consider the possibility that Rob Congdon was unclear in his presentation on some points, and this contributed to Todd Mitchell being mistaken on other points.

We might consider the possibility that Rob Congdon has spent many years in Europe, where his statement about "incitement" contains a lot of truth, and that Todd Mitchell's perception of his presentation was skewed by that statement. His own account indicates that the "incitement" comment had him extremely skeptical from the beginning, and the one who is expecting errors will hear things in a way that confirms his expectation -- so that is certainly a possibility.

There are other possibilities as well, but little need to elaborate extensively. There are many possibilities here besides dishonesty.

JG,

We might rightfully consider that Mr. Mitchell was present and accurately reported what was said because there is no evidence to the contrary--other than your past personal experience with Mr. Congdon.

We might rightfully consider that if Mr. Mitchell's reporting was inaccurate, other SI members who were present for the breakout session (assuming there were some) would dispute his report.

We might rightfully consider that the FBFI members who were present either had no qualms with Mr. Congdon's reported conspiracy theories and misrepresentations of Calvinists, Amillennialists, and men like Piper; or, they are unable to substantiate Mr. Mitchell's report for reasons other than his possible inaccuracy.

There are also other possibilities we might consider about Mr. Congdon's emphasis on eschatology and whether that could contribute to an unhealthy conspiracy-laden view of the future; but because neither of us were present in the session, it would be best for us to yield our "possibilities" to those who actually were present.

Ken Fields

Larry's picture

Moderator

The idea that this is all about "kingdom now" is sufficiently flawed so as to mar the whole conclusion, regardless of associations (which seem troublesome by FBF standards). "Kingdom now" (which I reject as strongly as any) is not really the issue. As was pointed out somewhere, many, if not most, are "already/not yet" people (like Piper and others). I don't know of anyone that does not believe the eternal state is in some sense the kingdom of God.

"Kingdom now" is one of the impetuses behind the original New Evangelicalism. They thought the "Kingdom later" (dispensationalists) had withdrawn too much from culture and society. Today, one of the marks of the Neo Calvinism is a heavy emphasis on social justice and cultural redemption. That all stems from a present form of the kingdom (that i think is greatly misguided). But it sounds to me like, from what I read and from the Panel Discussion that I listened to), Congdon is putting way too much emphasis on that, as well as misrepresenting some people.

JG's picture

I don't know, Roger. I don't really want to speak for the FBFI. Rob Congdon is, I believe, speaking at a conference next month where Ryrie is speaking. Ryrie isn't Dever, of course. I don't know what the FBFI position is on this, exactly. If you swap out Ryrie and put Dever in that conference, would they have done differently? I don't know.

I do know that, even in FBFI circles, there has been an increasing awareness and appreciation for Dever in recent years. He isn't where they are, and they believe he should be, but they recognize the good, while disagreeing with the bad. The days of saying, "Oh, he's a disobedient brother, write him off," are fading even in the FBFI. As broad evangelicalism drifts more and more into a mess, men like Dever stand out more and more when they hold the line on important matters. FBFI standards may not change, but their attitude towards those who differ on those standards may well be changing.

To all:
This has been an interesting discussion. Perhaps Rob Congdon will drop in on it, but the knives are out before he ever shows up, so perhaps there is little profit in him doing so. The knives have been out against the FBFI for a while, so it is hardly surprising. He was asked to speak on a controversial topic, and apparently said some negative things about one of the SI heroes. Because of the topics Rob addresses, it is easy to pick holes if you want to.

I know Rob fairly well, since he attended our church for over a year. He loves the Lord. He lives an exemplary life, and his family is exemplary. His daughter and future son-in-law intend to return to Scotland as missionaries. He is a generous and considerate person. He was personally very kind to us just a month ago when my daughter was very ill.

None of that excuses doctrinal error. But I know personally that Rob practices careful exegesis. I've heard him preach and teach. I've heard his contributions to Bible study discussions. His theological position is available on his website, and is sound.

Rob studies current trends extensively, and draws many conclusions, including conclusions about how those trends may relate to what we see in Scriptures about the end times. Perhaps not all of those conclusions are well-founded. Certainly, I have not always agreed with them. As far as I know, he does not claim Biblical or divine authority for those conclusions. He does not claim to be inerrant.

It has been several years since Rob was in our church, and I have only seen him once in the last three years, for a very brief visit. Perhaps he has changed in some ways in recent years. Perhaps this wasn't his best presentation. Perhaps many things. Perhaps most of all, it would be good to get a tape and listen to it to hear exactly what was said -- which may well be far more nuanced than one would think from reading this thread -- before deciding to join those calling for an online tar and feather party.

The SI community in this thread gives the impression of feeling like "we won one against the bad guys" with Pastor Sweatt, and now lets flex our muscles to see if we can take down someone else at FBFI. It just so happens that someone here happens to know a little more about Rob Congdon than one seminar, and from my perspective, this all doesn't look very good. There is more to this story somewhere. This is a good brother, and while he may be imperfect, and his presentation may have been imperfect, this thread has gone way over the top.

I doubt I have anything profitable to add to this thread beyond that.

KenFields's picture

JG wrote:

The SI community in this thread gives the impression of feeling like "we won one against the bad guys" with Pastor Sweatt, and now lets flex our muscles to see if we can take down someone else at FBFI. It just so happens that someone here happens to know a little more about Rob Congdon than one seminar, and from my perspective, this all doesn't look very good. There is more to this story somewhere. This is a good brother, and while he may be imperfect, and his presentation may have been imperfect, this thread has gone way over the top.

JG,

Speaking for myself, it is not my intent to "take down someone else at FBFI." Not my purpose, desire, or intent in any way.

But, as fundies--and FBF'ers know, we are commanded to examine one's teaching in light of the Scriptures.

I have nothing against Mr. Congdon as a person. I've never met him, and I have no reason to doubt what you said about his character and integrity.

Yet, assuming the reports coming from his breakout session are accurate, I am concerned with what he said and how he responded when he was confronted about his misrepresentation of Piper.

Sometimes it is difficult to separate the man from the message, but in this case, no one on SI has attacked Mr. Congdon's character or his love for God. We have simply questioned the accuracy of his public statements, his eschatological views, and his misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Reformed eschatology.

I hope no personal offense has been taken.

Ken Fields

JG's picture

KenFields wrote:
but because neither of us were present in the session, it would be best for us to yield our "possibilities" to those who actually were present.

Ken, I discussed "possibilities" because you thought I was accusing Todd Mitchell of lying. That was not true. If his report is inaccurate, it is undoubtedly because of communication failure on the part of the speaker, the hearer, or both. That was the point of my "possibilities". There are many ways a report can be inaccurate besides dishonesty.

In fact, Ken, you misrepresented my earlier comment as an accusation of dishonesty against a brother, when it was not. Wink Were you being dishonest? Of course not. Yet, it was not an accurate representation of my statement. You drew a conclusion from what I said, but it was not what I either said or intended. See how easily this kind of thing can happen?

Larry's picture

Moderator

Quote:
one of the SI heroes
Who's that?

New Calvinism and the Emergent church are worlds apart. I can't imagine what kind of study put them in the same category. I don't know how you get to that conclusion. The New Calvinism is very doctrinally certain (even if misguided in some places). Emergent hates doctrinal certitude.

JG's picture

KenFields wrote:
Yet, assuming the reports coming from his breakout session are accurate, I am concerned with what he said and how he responded when he was confronted about his misrepresentation of Piper.

Ken, certainly there is no personal offense. Perhaps we should just pull back until the tape becomes available, and then we can each assess for ourselves how much concern is appropriate.

rogercarlson's picture

Sounds good. I too was not trying to attack Brother Cogdon. I am sorry I came across that way. I was trying to examine his position. It seems way to conspiritorial for my taste. I think that is one draw back ty my dispensational position. We have to connect alot of dots - and I think we can Biblically. But sometimes we connect dots and make connections that are not there. I remember when i was at BJ, SOME students were saying Sadaam HAD to be THE anti-christ. But, I too will wait till the tape comes out.

Roger Carlson, Pastor
Berean Baptist Church

Jim's picture

Here's my take on the FBFI, the conference, the comments etc

  1. I don't see the FBFI as much different in organization (not speaking about the position but organization only) than the Shepherd's Conference or T4G. Attendees get together once a year for great preaching / teaching (except T4G is biannual).
  2. The FBFI is not a true fellowship of churches (like the GARBC, MBA, etc)
  3. It has value: the publications, resolutions, etc
  4. Looking at the speaker lineup for this week's conference, it looks terrific and I wish I could have been there. I've heard John Vaughn, Mark Minnick, John Hartog, and Kevin Bauder speak and I could take a lot more of that!
  5. About Cogdon's breakout session: I'm sure he is a good man. Even good men have some weird views and it is dangerous when men depart from the text and enter into speculation. (think Jack Van Impe's "giant computer in Belgium called "the beast"" - which I heard once almost 35 years ago! Because I was a salesman for IBM .... I wondered if somehow I was complicit in the one-world conspiracy! Of course a computer 35 years ago had much less horsepower than the average PC today!)
  6. Summary: Understand what the FBFI is (and is not). Bob T had some good comments about that. And appreciate the FBFI for what it is!
  7. About "The Doctrines of Grace" (which I embrace). The true doctrines of grace humble man and elevate God! They motivate and energize evangelism and missions.

    Ever been on a cruise ship? Must do that some time - one of the most relaxing vacations I've ever had was on a cruise ship! A conference is like a cruise ship. You go, you feed (my sister who was with me had Alaskan salmon at every meal! / I managed (or perhaps better said did not manage) to gain over 10 lbs in one cruise week!), you fellowship, and then you go home to the gritty world of work, mowing the grass, ordinary food (Grape nuts for breakfast, PB & J for lunch, and Lean Cuisine for dinner), and paying bills!

    I'm beginning to see that there are only but slight differences between my wing of fundamentalism (and as of today I still call myself a fundamentalist!) and the very conservative wing of evangelicalism. Mark Dever was in Minneapolis earlier this year and spoke at an fundamental Baptist church. No one blinked an eye (of criticism!)!

    As for Tweets / Twitters (Excellent job, Greg!!!!). I am not going to draw conclusions from 140 character bits of data (re: the "dialog is dangerous" comment).

Todd Mitchell's picture

For the same reason I appreciate Jim Peet vouching for me, I appreciate JG vouching for both Mr. Congdon and the FBFI(as he said, "I am also about 99% certain that if it [my report ] were truly representative, some of the FBFI men would condemn it rather than endorse it.")

If anyone ever wrongly accuses me of something, I want a fellow like JG in my corner.

JG has also displayed wisdom in crafting his words carefully to help me save face, should my report prove to be a misunderstanding of Mr. Congdon, and he has displayed wisdom in urging caution when you only have one report (namely, mine).

So I commend to you JG's thought, "Perhaps we should just pull back until the tape becomes available." I urge you to listen to the tape, and decide for yourself.

Rev Karl's picture

Jay C wrote:
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.


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.

Sorry, I am coming late to this party. Microsoft "updated" my operating system, and messed up the keyboard mapping on my computer...

I remember sitting in chapel at The University listening to an administrator declare unto us that, if we did not *send* our children to The University when they came of college age, we would be the most reviled, lowdown rats that ever crawled the face of the planet (or words to that effect). I guess those who were sitting in chapel with me then - and are now presidents and administrators of other Bible colleges - must be the lowest of the low, in that man's opinion.

As for the comment about music majors, if this is the same guy who comes up when I google "BJU Staff Evangelist", interestingly enough, he plays the trumpet. I suppose it's OK in his mind to be a Christian Musician, as long as your college major was Bible.

The joke he told has been around for 30 years. It wasn't funny then. IMHO, it contributed to the perception of men preparing for a ministry in music as "just music majors." No wonder I had to leave the BJU affiliated IFB churches in order to get a chance to serve as a minister of the gospel.

There are only two BJU graduates that I have known who have served first as Music Director, and then as Senior Pastor.

One of those was Danny Sweatt.