ATC Conference – Glad I Went
Last night I had the opportunity to attend the ATC conference in Lansdale. One of my pastor friends expressed surprise in seeing me after having read a previous blog that I wrote about the value of conferences. I reminded him that I concluded the blog with an “I’ll see you in the hallway.”
Anyway, it was an enjoyable evening and great to see many old friends. I ran into Bruce MacAllister from BJ with whom I worked when I was a student there. We were part of those cursed hall leaders. There was an alumni reception with great food that provided an added incentive to attend. Mark Dever spoke and it was my first time hearing him publicly. Others will surely comment on his message. At this point I’m simply glad he was there with men and preaching to men who would’ve shunned him a few years ago.
One thing of great value with ATC is that it is taking place. Five years ago it would’ve been hard to predict that there would be a day when an amillennial Southern Baptist would be invited to speak at Calvary. I realize that some are still explaining that this was a seminary conference with more latitude than if it were a church conference and that some will share the platform with Dever if invited but not accept invitations to speak at Dever’s church or invite Dever to speak at their church or institution. Or not yet anyway.
I think I understand the cautious mindset but also believe that many of those reservations will and should eventually go by the wayside. Of course I’m tipping my hand and would have no reservation in preaching at Dever’s church. Of course it’s easy to say since he doesn’t know me and would never invite me. As much as some have criticized gospel-centeredness, it’s becoming clearer to many that this is not only scriptural but necessary in our day in order to demonstrate to the world the reality of our union with and unity in Christ and in order to partner for the advance of the gospel.
Brother Steve:
Interesting comments, and raises a few thoughts of my own.
“At this point I’m simply glad he was there with men and preaching to men who would’ve shunned him a few years ago.”
So, who changed over the past few years to allow for this convergence? It wasn’t Dever.
“I realize that some are still explaining that this was a seminary conference with more latitude than if it were a church conference and that some will share the platform with Dever if invited but not accept invitations to speak at Dever’s church or invite Dever to speak at their church or institution.”
Nevertheless, CBS is a ministry and under the auspices of a local church, Calvary Baptist Church. Should men be any less militant about guarding the gospel through biblical separation and/or guarding the whole counsel of God in the ministry of a local church than guarding the church itself?
•CBS is a ministry of Calvary Baptist Church (CBC),
•CBS is a ministry to serve local churches,
•Doran, Bauder, Jordan are recognized ministers in and among the churches.
Kind regards,
LM
Lou:
I don't know how/if Dever has changed over the years. As for the others, who hasn't changed? And in this case it may be precisely because they have a better understanding of the gospel above which other issues had been exalted in the past. No one’s singing kumbaya and pretending that all differences have disappeared or need to. The gospel transcends those differences and encourages those who are sound in the faith to labor together in the defense and furtherance of the gospel. I do think that there has been a significant and needed shift in understanding biblical separation and its application. I applaud the efforts these men are making and their militant defense of the gospel. I don’t have to agree with them on all issues and applications of biblical principles.
For too long many have been militant but it hasn’t been about the gospel. I do think the time will come, and welcome it, that these men will sense freedom to preach in each others’ churches/institutions. Whether they do or not is not my call or concern. I want to enjoy Christian fellowship and partnership when possible with the Dorans, Jordans, Devers, Bauders, etc. When not possible I wish them well as brothers in God’s vineyard.
Steve
Unilke Lou, I could fellowship with an SBC amillenialist, but I don't know about a former BJU Monitor (we all know the change to "hall leader" was just a pr gimmick right?). Can someone really change once they've sunk that low? HA.
Keith:
I liked the sound of "monitor." More power, more control. Don't know when the change came but "hall leader" sounds kinder 🙂 Forgive me if I or someone else gave you too many demerits 🙂
Steve
This was an outstanding conference. Beautiful, vibrant worship in song; meaty, gospel-centered preaching and teaching; riveting testimonies of God's saving grace; and true Christian fellowship. Perhaps one of the greatest "side benefits" was the real life example of what happens when men who disagree on certain aspects of theology and/or ministry philosophy actually sit down and talk. All of a sudden you realize that the person you formerly viewed as your opponent is really your brother in Christ (and I'm not saying that the speakers at the conference necessarily viewed each other as opponents, but we know such thinking is still prevalent). As others have mentioned, you certainly don't walk away in total agreement. As a matter of fact, you probably walk away still maintiaining many if not all of the same positions you came to the table with. But you realize via face to face communication that the other person is just that – a person – an image bearer of God. And further, you realize that they are a person who loves Christ and the purity of His gospel – and that they have given their lives to further His cause.
When you guys are talking about hall leaders and BJU monitor, or hall monirtor all I could think of is Spongebob as a hall monitor….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyCenSt_WTM&feature=related
Mark:
“gospel-centered preaching and teaching.” But what interpretation of the Gospel? This is crucial to any discussion of the convergence with evangelicals, the T4G men in particular?
Was it Lordship Salvation’s interpretation of the Gospel that the preaching and teaching was centered on?
“One of the chief objections to the notion of ‘lordship salvation’ is that it adds to the gospel of grace. It requires something of the sinner, which the Scriptures do not require. The message of salvation by grace proclaims to sinner that they may receive eternal life by faith alone whereas the message of 'lordship salvation' tells sinners they must be willing to give up whatever is in their life that is displeasing to God.” (Dr. Ernest Pickering)
LM
Mark:
"All of a sudden you realize that the person you formerly viewed as your opponent is really your brother in Christ"
Wouldn't you agree that Dever was always a brother in Christ? The divide has been and is today over doctrine and its application.
LM
Steve:
“I applaud the efforts these men are making and their militant defense of the gospel.”
Same question as to Mark; which interpretation of the Gospel? Again from Dr. Pickering’s review of The Gospel According to Jesus,
“MacArthur laments, ‘Contemporary Christendom too often accepts a shallow repentance that bears no fruit’ (p. 96). This theme recurs over and over again in the book. The recommended cure for this malady is to require more of the seeking sinner than the Bible requires. Instead of ‘merely’ believing on the finished work of Christ the inquiring soul must also be willing to have Christ as Lord over every area of his life. It seems evident upon an examination of this thesis that those who espouse it are adding something to the gospel that is not in the Scriptures. Charles Ryrie was certainly on target when he wrote, ‘The message of faith only and the message of faith plus commitment of life cannot both be the gospel…’” (Balancing the Christian Life, p. 70.)
Since the “pure gospel” appears to be the rally point for the convergence of KB, DD, Olson, Jordan with evangelicals they had better know what interpretation of the Gospel they are rallying around; don’t you agree? And be sure that those following this expanded fellowship and ministerial cooperation know exactly what interpretation of the Gospel is the rally point.
LM
"" I don't Lou:
I see you have your own web site. I guess, and I mean this kindly, I don't understand the point of much of what you write about. Although your site is entitled "In the Defense of the Gospel" it seems that you are really defending a position by attacking and exposing all those who disagree with you.
I don't follow your argument that:
“Since the “pure gospel” appears to be the rally point for the convergence of KB, DD, Olson, Jordan with evangelicals they had better know what interpretation of the Gospel they are rallying around don’t you agree?”
I may not agree with every application and emphasis that others see/find in their interpretation of the gospel. You seem to suggest that you are defending the “pure gospel” and that the men you mention have compromised it. Nothing could be further from the truth. Rather it is their commitment to the Christ of the Gospel which has led to what you call a “convergence.”
Steve
Lou,
Yes, of course I agree that Dever has always been (since his conversion, obviously) a brother in Christ. However, the characterization of Dever by some in the blogosphere has been less than charitable of a brother in Christ. Therefore, my point is that such people would be much better off to try and talk to Dever than about him. Face to face dialogue usually offers a safeguard against uncharitable and inaccurate characterizations. I speak from experience, and to my shame.
Finally, and I don't mean to be unkind, but quoting Pickering and others is not as authoritative as you would perhaps like it to be. What was refreshing about this conference was I saw men committed to understanding the Scripture. I would encourage you to listen to the recordings of the sessions. I hope that the testimonies (brief personal testimonies by several of the interns from Capitol Hill Baptist Church) are included. Those testimonies, the singing, and the preaching/teaching all included gospel truth that I can't imagine being controversial.
Mark