FBFI Annual '09: Panel Discussion on Twitter

John Vaughn: we don’t want to get into (the T4G) box… we have our own box…

Minnick: The technology has collapsed the walls around us- they are talking to us, we need to be talking to them

Van Gelderen [I think]: “Dialogue is dangerous”

Bauder asks about Alan Keyes (Roman Catholic) [speaking?] at BJU - should they be considered now Evangelical… Minnick answering…

Minnick: Fellowship with non-evangelicals is the watershed issue; worldliness factors in, but harder to define…

Question: Is there a “left” and a “right” in Conservative Evangelicalism?

It seems to me that there’s a bit of a divide manifest in the panel over relating to the CE’s. I thought it was good that Bauder addressed some of the double standard at play [Keyes at BJU, and I’m HOPING Clarence Sexton’s appearances at BJU] , but w/o the audio I can’t really tell. I’d love to hear some of the responses to the quotes above.

It also seems like there is a definite presumption that you’re either “of us” or you aren’t - someone referred to this yesterday in another thread. So my followup is - “of us” being the FBFI or is it broader? I’m assuming it’s FBFI.

Any other thoughts?

I will confirm that I heard Van Geldren say “dialogue is dangerous at this point”

[Matthew Olmstead] I will confirm that I heard Van Geldren say “dialogue is dangerous at this point”

This appears to be yet another elitist call for isolationism.

Sad.

[KenFields]

[Matthew Olmstead] I will confirm that I heard Van Geldren say “dialogue is dangerous at this point”

This appears to be yet another elitist call for isolationism.

Sad.

The question is how many will listen to Van Geldren and how many will ignore him. The FBFI contrary to popular belief is not a monolith nationwide. There are variations in the different regions.

Wayne VanGeldren’s statement said in effect we have already heard the Conservative Evangelical’s; we know where they stand; and dialogue is dangerous at this point. This came at the heels of Dr. Minnick’s statement that said in effect that we needed dialogue with these men. I would like to hear Dr. VanG’s line of reasoning behind the “danger of dialogue.” Is this to say that Dr. Minnick’s dialogue with Mark Dever was wrong and dangerous? Again I would like to know how it was dangerous? In my opinion it was very informative and brought much light on this subject of the line of demarcation between Conservative Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, that being the issue of unity with non-evangelicals. We are very much alike with these brethren but the dividing line is Fundamentalists have settled this issue and the Conservative Evangelicals by and large have not. I have more to say about my observations concerning the symposium but I must run.

Rob,

I don’t think that’s a question. The people who listen to Van Gelderen (this is the correct spelling, which I missed) will continue to listen to Van Gelderen; the people that don’t will do the same. Nothing will change there.

I don’t even know that you accurately characterize the “popular belief”—Vaughn acknowledged as much (the FBFI is not monolithic) in his remarks this afternoon. I’m sure there are some in the FBFI that want it to be monolithic throughout, but the impossibilities of that seem evident when the leadership doesn’t even agree among themselves 100%.

Today was not a watershed event.

[Matthew Olmstead] Rob,

I don’t think that’s a question. The people who listen to Van Gelderen (this is the correct spelling, which I missed) will continue to listen to Van Gelderen; the people that don’t will do the same. Nothing will change there.

I don’t even know that you accurately characterize the “popular belief”—Vaughn acknowledged as much (the FBFI is not monolithic) in his remarks this afternoon. I’m sure there are some in the FBFI that want it to be monolithic throughout, but the impossibilities of that seem evident when the leadership doesn’t even agree among themselves 100%.

Today was not a watershed event.

By “popular belief”, I mean the consensus I seem to be reading here on SI. In talking matters over with other Westerners, the FBFI described by some on this forum is a different organization from the one we interact with. As for the monolith, I agree there are some who would follow a pattern set by some in a generation now past.

1. I need to pay my FBF subscription and get back on the Frontline mailing list.

2. Greg, thanks for all the interesting quotes.

3. Many of Southern Idaho Independent Baptist pastors are KJV-only and not too fond of Calvinism. I would imagine that Lancaster/West Coast is the flagship for Western Baptist Fundamentalism. (Btw, did you all see the full page ad of Striving Together Publications in the latest World magazine?)

4. I need to lovingly engage more with both KJV-only pastors and conservative evangelical pastors. Some “evangelical” pastors are very “militant” on some of the fundamentals of the faith. You can see this in the Mormon heartland where the foundations on God and His Gospel have been removed.

5. Fellowship with nonevangelicals is a watershed issue.

[KenFields]

[Matthew Olmstead] I will confirm that I heard Van Geldren say “dialogue is dangerous at this point”

This appears to be yet another elitist call for isolationism.

Sad.

And you can draw this uncharitable conclusion from one small snippet of the panel discussion? Wow….

Folks, if we’re not careful, we can be guilty of the very same negative, rush-to-judgment behavior we so passionately decry in the OFs.

[Kent McCune]

[KenFields]

[Matthew Olmstead] I will confirm that I heard Van Geldren say “dialogue is dangerous at this point”

This appears to be yet another elitist call for isolationism.

Sad.

And you can draw this uncharitable conclusion from one small snippet of the panel discussion? Wow….

Folks, if we’re not careful, we can be guilty of the very same negative, rush-to-judgment behavior we so passionately decry in the OFs.

Kent,

As you imply, I was not present for the panel discussion. I did follow the gist of the discussion via tweeter, but I was not present.

That is why I prefaced my concern regarding elitism with the caveat, “appears.”

Yet, I believe that, in the flow of the discussion—assuming the report was accurate—the “dialogue is dangerous at this point” counsel was a call for fundies to turn their backs on conservative evangelicals for good. And that does appear a bit elitist. And it does seem to be a call for isolationism.

I hope I am not guilty of a rush to judgment—and I hope professing fundies do not follow the advice they were given.

I think VG’s point was that Dialogue implies learning what they believe and say and we know what they say by what they have written. We simply need to talk at them, admonish them, not talk with them.

And Larry’s reading is a much more charitable one…

The http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=618091523340] pertinent audio for this conversation begins at 1:05:00 with Minnick arguing that there must be a dialogue to earn the right to admonish—Van Gelderen’s comment is at 1:13:04

And Larry’s reading is a much more charitable one…

Don’t go accusing me of charity. You will ruin my rep around here.

I did listen to the panel discussion last night so I had heard it in its context.

[Todd Wood] SNIP

3. SNIP I would imagine that Lancaster/West Coast is the flagship for Western Baptist Fundamentalism. SNIP

Actually, not really. I at least haven’t seen either school represented at the NorCal FBF meetings over the years. International Baptist College (Tempe, AZ) yes. The others no. It maybe because California is so large. It acts like sponge ready soak up men and ministries. So, what is happening down south (LA is 300+ miles south of SFO) has little impact up north and vice versa.