Minnick Reviews 2009 FBFI Fellowship
Thanks for your input, Greg.
And about the raised eyebrow - I had missed somewhere the connection of the eyebrow with an accident.
Earlier in my ministry, I had bell’s palsy. The whole left side of my face was paralyzed, left eyebrow upward and left part of my mouth downward. I was truly a sight in the pulpit. (chuckling)
blessings,
et
And about the raised eyebrow - I had missed somewhere the connection of the eyebrow with an accident.
Earlier in my ministry, I had bell’s palsy. The whole left side of my face was paralyzed, left eyebrow upward and left part of my mouth downward. I was truly a sight in the pulpit. (chuckling)
blessings,
et
[Jason Boling] “It is the single largest fellowship of Christian workers within fundamentalism. There are thousands of members of the FBF. It’s the most visible fellowship, presence, within fundamentalism. And so, it ends up being the focal point of a great deal of attention.”A minor point of clarification might be in order here. According to the FBFI directory, in saying there are “thousands of members” Dr. Minnick was surely speaking evangelistically :). “Hundreds” would be more accurate. Also, I believe the GARBC would be much larger, and perhaps the IFCA, but maybe they aren’t the same thing as a “fellowship of Christian workers” since they are associations of churches. Other than the FBF, is there another fundamentalist national “pastor’s fellowship” that is not an association of churches?
[Jason Boling] I thought these three quotes from the sermon might help balance Greg’s (and possibly others) impression about the matter of equating the FBF & fundamentalism…Jason, it is these quote I had in mind when I said-
Minnick speaks of the FBF and Fundamentalism almost as if they are one and the same (though he does stop short of that). Still, I do think it is interesting that he seems to equate “leaving” the FBF with deserting Fundamentalism.
“(Not wanting) to be associated with the FBF” is immediately followed by “in some cases they are even prepared to leave fundamentalism as a movement.” That is exactly what I was getting at- the step as described by Minnick is logically a very small one, and one that if not taken is certainly a short leap.
I agree when you observe there is a distinction- which is why I said he does seem to stop short of saying that. With that being said, I am also quite certain I am not alone in my perception of what he said, even from fundamentalists whose names many would recognize who aren’t particularly “young.”
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
I was able to take the time to listen to Mark Minnck’s entire message. Some observations! He appears to give a defense of the FBFI. I must respectfully disagree with some of the defense and other perspective.
First the FBFI has 794 members listed in the 2008 - 2009 National Directory. It is not several thousand as stated.
Second, it would appear to me to be in accordance with wisdom to consider not being a member of the FBFI. Biblically ,Christians are to not forsake the local assembly and it is the pillar and ground of the truth. Also, there is no Biblical phenomena of a “Clergy class” exercising authority or organized influence outside the local church authority. Only the Apostles had this.. There is no basis for a group of individuals to have an organization that seeks to exercise influence and authority over churches or individuals. The FBF was formed within the Northern Baptist Convention by Pastors who represented churches who had membership in the convention. It had the purpose of seeking influence within the convention. When the members of FBF’s churches withdrew from the convention and the CBA was formed, the legitimate purposes of the FBF ended. The reality is that many Fundamentalist Pastors like to keep churches as independent and not involved with other churches while having some sort of clergy group they can have fellowship with.
Third, the proper application of Matthew 18 requires the local church as the final authority. The public differences in a group like the FBFI do not require the reverting to private means of handling. Bloggers would seem to have the freedom to comment and attack issues already public without a first encounter in private. Deliver a sermon in public that reaches outside the local church and you take the Matthew 18 procedure off the table. If merely a sermon within the congregation and then the Matthew 18 procedure is necessary.
Fourth, Mark Minnick does not appear to fully handle all the issues regarding conservative Evangelicals. He and others state John MacArthur is the most conservative of them. That may be true. However, some of us here on the west coast, and especially in So. CA.., have a different perspective on the related issues. I have had some personal conversations with John through the years. I know some who know him and his ministry very well. I also personally know some graduates of Master’s college and Master’s Seminary and know some Master’s Seminary faculty somewhat which includes having lunch and personal meetings in past years. One, who was a former Talbot faculty member, was instrumental in my being hired for the Talbot adjunct faculty in past years.
After getting out of the Navy I attended Biola University from 1962 to 66 and John MacArthur was at Talbot. I remember playing intramural touch Football against him. I am trying to impress with the fact that I believe i have a handle on the background, mood, and convictions involving John MacArthur’s ministry and influence. The issue of Biblical separation is not on the table for Master’s graduates. It is about the same as Biola and Talbot was in the sixties. That was very ambivalent and inconsistent. Some have gone into the IFCA but have stated they are out to change it when actually the IFCA is already very weak on separation on the west coast.. A few have gone into the GARBC but only out of immediate convenience. Some are in the Sovereign Grace Baptist Fellowship and others are in a wide variety of Evangelical churches. In many cases they have pushed Calvinism in a militant way and have been involved in several church splits. The Resolved youth conferences initiated by Rick Holland of John MacArthur’s church staff ,always have John as a speaker along with other Calvinist speakers. They also have C.J. Mahany who is charismatic. I like some CCM. However, the music is a disappointing type CCM which while more conservative than some still is a compromise with the culture to gain a crowd. Something John has criticized other churches for. This is an example of the inconsistency of ministry . There is now a militant effort to push Calvinism and John’s special brand of Lordship gospel. This has become increasingly prominent in the last ten or fifteen years.
To put it simply, this may be the most conservative of those who we call “conservative Evangelicals.” However, there are a myriad of inconsistencies and problems involved with this ministry and the schools. Many Conservative and Fundamentalist Pastors were thankful for John’s stand against the Charismatic movement, Creationism, family, and some other issues. We were thankful for his large ministry and visibility. However, increasingly some of us have seen an emphasis and increased militancy regarding Calvinism and Lordship Gospel that appears to have changed the effect and mood of the ministry.
Those who follow the Conservative Evangelicals find their teaching ministry appears great and attractive. However, it appears to me they have not fully considered the theological nuances and effect of some doctrine taught. I mentioned John Piper in another post and his view of works in relation to the doctrine of Justification. His view is clearly heretical and crosses the line. However almost none of the YFs appear to acknowledge this. Combine that with the exaggerated emphasis of MacArthur for “total commitment” necessary for union with Christ and Justification and you have serious doctrinal issues. Why are these not being discussed?
I question the importance importance of the FBFI with regard to the idea Fundamentalism. Here on the west coast the FBFI has no real visibility. The GARBC is the most widespread. There are some KJVO Fundamentalist churches which includes two large Hyles type. Then there are some BBF and IFCA churches of various kinds. There is little appreciation for Fundamentalism or Baptists out here. Many Baptist churches go by another name (Saddleback and Shadow Mountain). It appears that there are a variety of Christian cultures in various part of the country.
First the FBFI has 794 members listed in the 2008 - 2009 National Directory. It is not several thousand as stated.
Second, it would appear to me to be in accordance with wisdom to consider not being a member of the FBFI. Biblically ,Christians are to not forsake the local assembly and it is the pillar and ground of the truth. Also, there is no Biblical phenomena of a “Clergy class” exercising authority or organized influence outside the local church authority. Only the Apostles had this.. There is no basis for a group of individuals to have an organization that seeks to exercise influence and authority over churches or individuals. The FBF was formed within the Northern Baptist Convention by Pastors who represented churches who had membership in the convention. It had the purpose of seeking influence within the convention. When the members of FBF’s churches withdrew from the convention and the CBA was formed, the legitimate purposes of the FBF ended. The reality is that many Fundamentalist Pastors like to keep churches as independent and not involved with other churches while having some sort of clergy group they can have fellowship with.
Third, the proper application of Matthew 18 requires the local church as the final authority. The public differences in a group like the FBFI do not require the reverting to private means of handling. Bloggers would seem to have the freedom to comment and attack issues already public without a first encounter in private. Deliver a sermon in public that reaches outside the local church and you take the Matthew 18 procedure off the table. If merely a sermon within the congregation and then the Matthew 18 procedure is necessary.
Fourth, Mark Minnick does not appear to fully handle all the issues regarding conservative Evangelicals. He and others state John MacArthur is the most conservative of them. That may be true. However, some of us here on the west coast, and especially in So. CA.., have a different perspective on the related issues. I have had some personal conversations with John through the years. I know some who know him and his ministry very well. I also personally know some graduates of Master’s college and Master’s Seminary and know some Master’s Seminary faculty somewhat which includes having lunch and personal meetings in past years. One, who was a former Talbot faculty member, was instrumental in my being hired for the Talbot adjunct faculty in past years.
After getting out of the Navy I attended Biola University from 1962 to 66 and John MacArthur was at Talbot. I remember playing intramural touch Football against him. I am trying to impress with the fact that I believe i have a handle on the background, mood, and convictions involving John MacArthur’s ministry and influence. The issue of Biblical separation is not on the table for Master’s graduates. It is about the same as Biola and Talbot was in the sixties. That was very ambivalent and inconsistent. Some have gone into the IFCA but have stated they are out to change it when actually the IFCA is already very weak on separation on the west coast.. A few have gone into the GARBC but only out of immediate convenience. Some are in the Sovereign Grace Baptist Fellowship and others are in a wide variety of Evangelical churches. In many cases they have pushed Calvinism in a militant way and have been involved in several church splits. The Resolved youth conferences initiated by Rick Holland of John MacArthur’s church staff ,always have John as a speaker along with other Calvinist speakers. They also have C.J. Mahany who is charismatic. I like some CCM. However, the music is a disappointing type CCM which while more conservative than some still is a compromise with the culture to gain a crowd. Something John has criticized other churches for. This is an example of the inconsistency of ministry . There is now a militant effort to push Calvinism and John’s special brand of Lordship gospel. This has become increasingly prominent in the last ten or fifteen years.
To put it simply, this may be the most conservative of those who we call “conservative Evangelicals.” However, there are a myriad of inconsistencies and problems involved with this ministry and the schools. Many Conservative and Fundamentalist Pastors were thankful for John’s stand against the Charismatic movement, Creationism, family, and some other issues. We were thankful for his large ministry and visibility. However, increasingly some of us have seen an emphasis and increased militancy regarding Calvinism and Lordship Gospel that appears to have changed the effect and mood of the ministry.
Those who follow the Conservative Evangelicals find their teaching ministry appears great and attractive. However, it appears to me they have not fully considered the theological nuances and effect of some doctrine taught. I mentioned John Piper in another post and his view of works in relation to the doctrine of Justification. His view is clearly heretical and crosses the line. However almost none of the YFs appear to acknowledge this. Combine that with the exaggerated emphasis of MacArthur for “total commitment” necessary for union with Christ and Justification and you have serious doctrinal issues. Why are these not being discussed?
I question the importance importance of the FBFI with regard to the idea Fundamentalism. Here on the west coast the FBFI has no real visibility. The GARBC is the most widespread. There are some KJVO Fundamentalist churches which includes two large Hyles type. Then there are some BBF and IFCA churches of various kinds. There is little appreciation for Fundamentalism or Baptists out here. Many Baptist churches go by another name (Saddleback and Shadow Mountain). It appears that there are a variety of Christian cultures in various part of the country.
[Julie Herbster] Am I the only one who sees that the “young fundamentalists” seem to be doing the very thing that they despise the older fundamentalists for doing? I would need more than two hands to count the number of times I’ve seen older fundamentalists called on the carpet for uncharitable speech, for not going privately before going publicly. I’m really not defending anyone here; just noting that young fundies seem to be doing an admirable job of carrying the grand tradition of “fightin’ fundamentalism” into the 21st century.No, Julie, you are not the only one. I think a good deal of the response to the Sweatt-FBFI incident has been a case study in irony, to put it mildly.
Disclaimer: I agree with most of the principles espoused by the Bauder-Bixby-Anderson-SI axis in their response to the Sweatt incident. I just think some of the YF chatter (feeding frenzy?) via blog posts and comments has been as negative and un-Christlike as similar OF behavior so decried by all in these circles.
Kent McCune I Peter 4:11
[Kent McCune][Julie Herbster] Am I the only one who sees that the “young fundamentalists” seem to be doing the very thing that they despise the older fundamentalists for doing? I would need more than two hands to count the number of times I’ve seen older fundamentalists called on the carpet for uncharitable speech, for not going privately before going publicly. I’m really not defending anyone here; just noting that young fundies seem to be doing an admirable job of carrying the grand tradition of “fightin’ fundamentalism” into the 21st century.No, Julie, you are not the only one. I think a good deal of the response to the Sweatt-FBFI incident has been a case study in irony, to put it mildly.
Disclaimer: I agree with most of the principles espoused by the Bauder-Bixby-Anderson-SI axis in their response to the Sweatt incident. I just think some of the YF chatter (feeding frenzy?) via blog posts and comments has been as negative and un-Christlike as similar OF behavior so decried by all in these circles.
Kent,
If you could spare a few moments to engage my question [in bold] in post #29, or Greg’s post #28, I would greatly appreciate it.
-edit-
Since this keeps coming up again and again, I’d like to see some examples of what Julie and Kent are talking about. I believe that it’s only fair, in light of the comments [accusations?].
"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
I haven’t been very involved in discussion on this topic, and I probably won’t get too deep into it. But, for what it’s worth, I am among those to whom it is clear that Sweatt went out of his way to distribute his message widely via the internet and, therefore, responding to it in the ‘bogosphere’ was not only fair play, it was necessary.
There was—and is—a downside to that, of course. Everybody wields an almost equally large megaphone and the cacophony can be pretty unhelpful. And the response to the message actually drew more attention to the message, then more response, etc. Chain reactions.
As for Minnick’s message, I do not believe his references to mission boards and schools were intended to promote institutional loyalty, but rather, he sees the kinds of choices a ministry makes in these areas as very meaningful indicators of philosophy and attitude toward worldliness. The latter was his theme for a major part of his talk up to that point. So he was not saying “whether you are loyal to certain institutions is a key indicator of how fundamental you are” but rather “if you promote certain institutions it shows what you believe in.” Whether we agree with the view of the world he was promoting or that these institutions promote is another question, but I would have to agree with him that where you at least want your missionaries and students to be connected, does tend to reflect either a) an institutional loyalty or b) a similar set of convictions. It’s to his credit that he does not advocate “a.”
Finally, a very general observation. I’ve seen some signs of the old scourge of “binary thinking” on this. That is, there’s a tendency in many to think they must be “for” a person (and everything he says or does) or “against” him (and therefore critical of everything he says or does). It’s a very unhealthy way to think and gets particularly toxic when we start reading other people’s thoughts by that grid. That is, folks who think this way tend to assume that when somebody criticizes leader X, he is by that act alone in the “against” category. And if someone says something nice about John Piper or whoever, he must be in the “for” cohort.
My advice to all whom the shoe fits: please don’t be binary. But if you must, please do not read other people through that lens. It’s unlikely that they fit the mold.
There was—and is—a downside to that, of course. Everybody wields an almost equally large megaphone and the cacophony can be pretty unhelpful. And the response to the message actually drew more attention to the message, then more response, etc. Chain reactions.
As for Minnick’s message, I do not believe his references to mission boards and schools were intended to promote institutional loyalty, but rather, he sees the kinds of choices a ministry makes in these areas as very meaningful indicators of philosophy and attitude toward worldliness. The latter was his theme for a major part of his talk up to that point. So he was not saying “whether you are loyal to certain institutions is a key indicator of how fundamental you are” but rather “if you promote certain institutions it shows what you believe in.” Whether we agree with the view of the world he was promoting or that these institutions promote is another question, but I would have to agree with him that where you at least want your missionaries and students to be connected, does tend to reflect either a) an institutional loyalty or b) a similar set of convictions. It’s to his credit that he does not advocate “a.”
Finally, a very general observation. I’ve seen some signs of the old scourge of “binary thinking” on this. That is, there’s a tendency in many to think they must be “for” a person (and everything he says or does) or “against” him (and therefore critical of everything he says or does). It’s a very unhealthy way to think and gets particularly toxic when we start reading other people’s thoughts by that grid. That is, folks who think this way tend to assume that when somebody criticizes leader X, he is by that act alone in the “against” category. And if someone says something nice about John Piper or whoever, he must be in the “for” cohort.
My advice to all whom the shoe fits: please don’t be binary. But if you must, please do not read other people through that lens. It’s unlikely that they fit the mold.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Jay C][Julie Herbster] Did Pastor Minnick refer to Pastor Sweatt’s message only as a misjudgment or misspeaking? No. If I remember right, he used the term “unethical.” While he did not mention any names, I think that anyone who knows what is going on understands what he meant by his statements.
Actually, Minnick did use the term ‘misspeak’ [a couple of times] - 57 minutes and 24 seconds into it. Perhaps he was setting off a hypothetical, but when you listen to what he says in context, esp. since he ‘wants to address a few very, very specific things’, it sounds like he’s talking about Sweatt.
I know he used these terms, Jay. Did he not also use the term unethical—and proceed to elaborate on that “hypothetical situation” for at least a minute or two? If he did, I’m not sure what your point is here.
Julie - this is the entire problem in a nutshell. What is the right way to respond when a message like Sweatt’s is preached?
Dr. Minnick’s answer: Go to Pastor Sweatt privately and speak with him humbly and graciously about it. What is wrong with this approach? In this particular situation, at least 6 “young men who blog” (according to Greg’s “two hands” estimation) would have done this (in addition to who knows how many FBF associates who disagreed or were offended at his sermon). How would this approach have been biblically wrong?
That’s been the whole point of the discussion. Most of us have decided that the proper way to respond is to stop supporting the agency that he spoke at, even though [as Dr. Minnick noted] he spoke as himself and not for the FBFI.
OK…I’m not sure how anyone can conclude that this is the proper response…especially if they weren’t “supporters” in the first place. I’m confused. As you said yourself (and has been acknowledged both officially and unofficially several times), Pastor Sweatt certainly did not speak on behalf of the FBF.
Greg’s corollary is why should we join the FBFI entirely, especially in light of this? The question is not if I am personally offended.
Is the FBFI out there recruiting you guys, or what? I’m just not seeing a recruitment effort where I’m living, which is just outside Greenville, at The Wilds, no less. As I said, none of the guys in my immediate sphere have ever seen a “need” to join any fellowship, including the FBF.
I didn’t bring up BJU to throw it under the bus. I brought it up to point out a perceived inconsistency; I am asking ~anyone~ for clarification or explanation from the people that taught me. I hardly think that I’m dividing the body of Christ by doing so.
Jay, I wasn’t referring to you when I spoke of dividing the body of Christ. I was merely noting that accusing someone else does not absolve others who are doing the same thing, and that those who choose to publicly call out brethren without first going privately to them are being divisive. I’m absolutely sure BJU has been guilty of this very thing before; that’s my point when I say that the young fundamentalists are acting in the same ways they’ve despised the OF’s for acting. The question is: what is the biblical thing to do? Not, “But what about how so-and-so handled it?” A parent’s inconsistency in a certain area is no excuse for the same fault in his offspring. Both will answer to God for themselves.
Sweatt’s message, as I noted above, is on the internet. It was preached at a very public gathering.
Right…but you know what? I (who live at The Wilds, where the message was preached) would never have known about it had it not been publicly addressed on SI. I would never have visited the original site where it was posted. So, from my perspective, I (and others just like me) were drawn into the frenzy unnecessarily and unwillingly. If the “young men who blog” would have approached Pastor Sweatt privately and humbly, having extended conversations if necessary, before posting their comments, maybe I would have listened to them more instead of turning away with a bad taste in my mouth. As it was, I just tuned out. To me, it was just another day in “fightin’ Fundyland”…just so much noise. (Please don’t think I’m saying that there aren’t issues that matter somewhere in the midst of all this talk…I just wasn’t able to process the issues like I would have been able to had things been handled differently.)
If I had been there in person, I would have tried to talk to him.
I PMed you about this.
As a hypothetical example - If there are members who preach the divine inspiration of the KJV in the FBFI [I don’t know if there are or not, but it’s possible] , and Dr. Minnick finds out and then chooses to remain [not that I think he would] then yes, Dr. Minnick would be ‘more inclusive’ than I am. I could not participate in such a fellowship.
…which is your prerogative. The FBF may not be for you. So, why is that a big deal? Are you being “rushed” to join the organization? Why do you and others have to insert into this discussion the question, “Why should I join the FBF?” I’m still puzzled at that.
My concern is that some of the practices that have been tolerated within the FBFI constituency should not be tolerated. I realize that Dr. Minnick and the FBFI do not have time or probably the desire to go looking for people that don’t agree. My other concern is that when things like this do pop up, how do they handle them. Do they smooth everything over, which is what seems to be how they are handling this? Or do they admonish their members who do not agree with their own positions?
Again, since I (my husband, really) am not a part of this organization, I’m really not concerned about what they do when it comes to these issues. Maybe I should be…Can anyone give me a reason I should be? In any case, I happen to think the way they dealt with this issue was great. They clarified their position of inclusiveness and left it at that. I know others disagree and “wanted more.” I can’t for the life of me understand why people who are not part of the organization care that much about how it is run, or care to analyze the statement like it has been analyzed. Maybe you all are members of the FBF, and I just don’t know it. (?) I am totally out of the loop on this one.
As I’ve reread this post, I think it sounds grouchy. It’s not meant to be that way. Here are some smilies to prove it: :) :) :) :) :)
I believe people who join the FBF are the same ones who believe in showing support for what/who they believe in.
If you are the type of person who buys overpriced candy bars from a neighbor kid to help him/her out while he/she’s raising money for his/her school., or Girl Scout cookies that are not only overpriced, but not even tasty to you, then, just possibly you would also join the FBF just to show support for a like-minded group of pastors.
It’s not like it costs $100/year.
If you are the type of person who buys overpriced candy bars from a neighbor kid to help him/her out while he/she’s raising money for his/her school., or Girl Scout cookies that are not only overpriced, but not even tasty to you, then, just possibly you would also join the FBF just to show support for a like-minded group of pastors.
It’s not like it costs $100/year.
[Jay C] [I didn’t bring up BJU to throw it under the bus. I brought it up to poins t out a perceived inconsistency; I am asking ~anyone~ for clarification or explanation from the people that taught me. I hardly think that I’m dividing the body of Christ by doing so. Sweatt’s message, as I noted above, is on the internet. It was preached at a very public gathering. He has not shown any sign of apologizing for what he did and has re-affirmed his position at his church’s website. So how do I respond to that? If I had been there in person, I would have tried to talk to him.This is the macro and micro problem in a nutshell for me. I don’t have a problem with Pastor Sweatt (or anyone else) disagreeing with my Calvinism. Bro. Sweat is as entitled to his position as I am, and, on this matter, I don’t personally see any reason to divide over the issue. However, when either side does become devisive over the issue, I think they have violated the biblical commands regarding nity in the body. THAT was my primary issue with Dr. Sweatt. That is the microcosim here.
My concern is that some of the practices that have been tolerated within the FBFI constituency should not be tolerated. I realize that Dr. Minnick and the FBFI do not have time or probably the desire to go looking for people that don’t agree. My other concern is that when things like this do pop up, how do they handle them. Do they smooth everything over, which is what seems to be how they are handling this? Or do they admonish their members who do not agree with their own positions?
The macrocosim is how the FBF will handle the issue. I appreciate that Dr. Minnick declared this type of action unethical. He did not address the underlying biblical issue of unnecessary divisiveness, but he emphatically declared this behavior innappropriate. Yet, he will not do anything about it. Noone in the FBFI will. If it is unethical, I do not understand how it cannot be anything but sin. Is this how the FBF elieves we are to deal with sin? I know this may come across harshly in this medium, and I do not intend it so. I am just trying to get to the bottom of a legitimate issue that has troubled me within fundamentalism.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Dr. Minnick’s answer: Go to Pastor Sweatt privately and speak with him humbly and graciously about it. What is wrong with this approach? In this particular situation, at least 6 “young men who blog” (according to Greg’s “two hands” estimation) would have done this (in addition to who knows how many FBF associates who disagreed or were offended at his sermon). How would this approach have been biblically wrong?I think Julie hits at the heart of the issue here. To me (with due respect) this is the wrong question. It is not a question of would it have been biblically wrong to go to Sweatt personally. I know some who did.
The question is, “Is it biblically necessary to go to Sweatt personally?” I am not sure that it is.
First, it was a public issue, made even more public by self-promotion (not perjoratively used). Sweatt could have said, “That wasn’t one of my best, let’s not make that one available.” I have done that (for all the scads and hordes who listen to my messages off the net, it has been disappointing at times). But he didn’t. Even after being shown the problems with it and being requested to remove it he didn’t. He upped the ante with a prominent location on his own website, and Sermon Audio, and posted a link to a paper about the topic.
What could Sweatt have done? At the minimum, after hearing from some people, he could have said, “You know, I think I said it right, but it has caused sufficient angst that I will pull this one and take a run at it another way.” That would have preserved at least some unity.
Second, I don’t think fundamentalism has ever held the position that publicly stated and promoted opinions first require individual confrontation. I doubt (though I could be wrong), that Dr. Minnick (who I believe is the best exegetical preacher that I know of that is alive, far beyond MacArthur, Piper, or anyone else) contacted any of these bloggers before making his public statement about them. To argue that he didn’t really identify them rings a bit hollow to me. And far be it from me (apparently not far enough) to correct Dr. Minnick, whose briefcase I am not worthy to carry. If this was a private statement, I could see private confrontation.
So write this out of what I hope is humility. I don’t have all the answers. (I may post them later today on my blog however). Seriously, I don’t have all the answers. I am not convinced it was handled right by anyone.
But my point is to answer Julie’s questions by saying that I don’t think what Dr. Minnick said is biblically wrong; I just don’t know that it is biblically necessary to do it that way.
just a few observations:
1. the “why would i benefit from joining the FBFI” question stems from B Bixby’s original post. So that’s probably how it came into the conversation. Here is the answer, from their website: “One year membership in FBFI: includes Frontline subscription and annual FBFI directory. You will be notified of and invited to regional meetings in your area as well as the annual meeting each year in June.” So that’s what they are offering members.
2. about Minnick’s message, esp. the ending where he specifically addresses the Sweatt message and follow up. From his (and the FBFI) perspective, the FBFI is not at all responsible for what Sweatt preached.
“Folks, he [Sweatt] spoke for himself, not the fellowship.”
“If he [Sweatt] speaks contrary to what the organization has decided, then he is speaking in disregard of his brethren.”
So expecting any type of corrective move from them is not going to be fulfilled. They are a “fellowship,” so they’re not about engaging in conflict among themselves, for good or for ill.
About his comments about bloggers, 2 thoughts:
A. I suppose Bixby (or whoever) could’ve first privately contacted Sweatt (and Phelps?) and said something like, “i love you; i admire you; i disagree with these points in your message; and since it was given to a national audience and is on your website, I think it needs to be publicly corrected. Can you please consider these points and correct yourself? otherwise, in [such and such period of time] I will be posting these points on my blog because a public answer needs to be heard. thank you, again i love you and respect you.”
B. I think it is helpful to understand that blogging and the internet has a pretty impersonal nature in some ways. The modicum of the written word itself, plus the entire absence of personal interaction (in this case), makes the whole issue more geared to ideas and logic. Blogging also lends itself to a certain creativity and flair in writing; kind of like the difference between reading a book then watching the movie. they are entirely different genres and that needs to be considered. So, for example, the fact that people blog in a different way than they would talk face-to-face is kind of a moot point, imo. blogging shoud still be considerate, though.
3. Really, I suppose we could ask ourselves, who started this whole thing? Most would say B Bixby. But did he? Did Sweat start it? For example, Sweatt’s title “Young and Restless” is in itself an insult and therefore somewhat inflammatory. I guess we could argue about that, but it seems like that is somewhat apparent. (and yes, i know it was taken from another source.)
In the end, they both had a hand in starting this hullabaloo, and I would say that they both did right and wrong in it—none of us are without sin. But the fact that there was a conflict is, in itself, probably a good and healthy thing. Sure it would’ve been nicer if Sweatt (or even someone from the FBFI) had been more interactive and tried to give further answers, facts, or insights about the actual topic. But that was, sadly, not the case. If we’d had more of the other side of the story from the other side, it would’ve been more profitable.
Anyway, those are some things i’ve been thinking about.
1. the “why would i benefit from joining the FBFI” question stems from B Bixby’s original post. So that’s probably how it came into the conversation. Here is the answer, from their website: “One year membership in FBFI: includes Frontline subscription and annual FBFI directory. You will be notified of and invited to regional meetings in your area as well as the annual meeting each year in June.” So that’s what they are offering members.
2. about Minnick’s message, esp. the ending where he specifically addresses the Sweatt message and follow up. From his (and the FBFI) perspective, the FBFI is not at all responsible for what Sweatt preached.
“Folks, he [Sweatt] spoke for himself, not the fellowship.”
“If he [Sweatt] speaks contrary to what the organization has decided, then he is speaking in disregard of his brethren.”
So expecting any type of corrective move from them is not going to be fulfilled. They are a “fellowship,” so they’re not about engaging in conflict among themselves, for good or for ill.
About his comments about bloggers, 2 thoughts:
A. I suppose Bixby (or whoever) could’ve first privately contacted Sweatt (and Phelps?) and said something like, “i love you; i admire you; i disagree with these points in your message; and since it was given to a national audience and is on your website, I think it needs to be publicly corrected. Can you please consider these points and correct yourself? otherwise, in [such and such period of time] I will be posting these points on my blog because a public answer needs to be heard. thank you, again i love you and respect you.”
B. I think it is helpful to understand that blogging and the internet has a pretty impersonal nature in some ways. The modicum of the written word itself, plus the entire absence of personal interaction (in this case), makes the whole issue more geared to ideas and logic. Blogging also lends itself to a certain creativity and flair in writing; kind of like the difference between reading a book then watching the movie. they are entirely different genres and that needs to be considered. So, for example, the fact that people blog in a different way than they would talk face-to-face is kind of a moot point, imo. blogging shoud still be considerate, though.
3. Really, I suppose we could ask ourselves, who started this whole thing? Most would say B Bixby. But did he? Did Sweat start it? For example, Sweatt’s title “Young and Restless” is in itself an insult and therefore somewhat inflammatory. I guess we could argue about that, but it seems like that is somewhat apparent. (and yes, i know it was taken from another source.)
In the end, they both had a hand in starting this hullabaloo, and I would say that they both did right and wrong in it—none of us are without sin. But the fact that there was a conflict is, in itself, probably a good and healthy thing. Sure it would’ve been nicer if Sweatt (or even someone from the FBFI) had been more interactive and tried to give further answers, facts, or insights about the actual topic. But that was, sadly, not the case. If we’d had more of the other side of the story from the other side, it would’ve been more profitable.
Anyway, those are some things i’ve been thinking about.
[Becky Petersen]… or Girl Scout cookies that are not only overpriced, but not even tasty to you
Wow, I didn’t know there were people who didn’t find Girl Scout cookies tasty. I supposed it’s true in theory, of course — I just haven’t met any! :) I agree with you on the part about overpriced, but I can’t think of any of the different cookies I even dislike, though I do have my favorites.
Dave Barnhart
[Julie Herbster] I can’t for the life of me understand why people who are not part of the organization care that much about how it is run, or care to analyze the statement like it has been analyzed. Maybe you all are members of the FBF, and I just don’t know it. (?) I am totally out of the loop on this one.
I think I can take a guess at this one. For better or worse, in some parts of the country, the FBF is seen as either synonymous with fundamentalism, or at least as its main mouthpiece. And even where that is less true, fundamentalists who are not a part of it still recognize that in some way it represents a rather large, or at least significant, part of fundamentalism (where they are). Those that are far enough removed from any FBF contact or influence probably don’t care what happens at the FBF or at its meetings. However, those who are around it, but not a part of it, still would like to see a large organization that claims fundamentalism, as the FBF does, be a good representative of that, and not be a symbol of all that is wrong with fundamentalism today. Thus, there is some measure of concern about what comes out of the FBF.
Dave Barnhart
[Jay C] Since this keeps coming up again and again, I’d like to see some examples of what Julie and Kent are talking about. I believe that it’s only fair, in light of the comments [accusations?].Don’t have a lot of time. A few examples that come to mind off the top of my head:
1 - I responded to a comment on another SI thread that was reacting to the Van Gelderen “don’t talk to them” comment in the FBFI panel discussion.
2 - If you read the whole children’s thread on Naselli’s blog, you will see a good 13 or more extremely negative posts reacting to the title for the children’s program at FBFI, with no evidence of what actually transpired in the program itself. I commented there as well.
3 - I also think some of the rhetoric in the major response articles was a little over the top and would have received YF castigation if an OF had said it that way.
Kent McCune I Peter 4:11
Discussion