Sorry, I got all Baptist with my alliteration in the title. I won’t let that happen again!
Have you been to a good conference recently? Maybe one of the many Calvinist/Reformed conferences that focus on the “gospel” (as they see it). Perhaps you’ve been to one of the several “Calvinism Ain’t Good” conferences that examine the points of Calvinism in order and expose their weaknesses. Perhaps you have gone to a church planting or church growth conference, or a spiritual life conference or a pastors’ conference or…well, there are so many!
And each of them has their own benefits and blessings (sorry – more “b” words). None of them is inherently evil. I think there is a danger in depending too heavily for instruction and encouragement on these conferences. Several Christian leaders have issued warnings about the dangers of over-conferencing. But, by and large, they can be helpful.
I’d like to address a specific type of conference and make a suggestion. There are conferences designed to confront a particular doctrine, idea or practice. Of course, Strange Fire, which happened just this weekend, is a prime example of this. A large group of cessationists gathered to expose the errors and deficiencies of the charismatic movement. Since this issue became somewhat personal to me for reasons most of you are aware of, I will not give a judgment on the values of that particular conference. I am speaking of a type of conference, not that one in particular. There have been several conferences recently by non-Calvinists to confront the “doctrines of grace” (as Calvinists designate them). Calvinists have had no end of conferences promoting their viewpoint on theology and practice. At these conferences, there is generally only one side given. At Strange Fire, charismatics were talked about, but not listened to. You won’t find many non-Reformed speakers at Calvinistic conferences and the non-Calvinist conferences seldom give a Calvinist the chance to address the crowd.
For the sake of this post, let us call those “contra-conferences” – gatherings that focus on something they are against. Against charismatics. Against Calvinists. Against seeker church. Against…fill in the blank.
Here is my suggestion (which I fully expect to be ignored) concerning contra-conferences:
Stop having them and stop attending them. Replace them with conferences where representatives of both sides converse to discuss issues, promote understanding and build unity.
Group hug.
It is fun to get together with a lot of people who agree with you and magnify the errors of those who don’t agree with you. But is it spiritually productive? Wouldn’t it be better to have a different kind of conference, one that builds up instead of providing a forum for unchecked verbal beat-downs of the other side?
Random Thoughts on the Topic
1) Include other viewpoints in the conference. A professor in seminary (Howard Hendricks) told us, “Don’t just read those people with whom you agree. All that will do is reinforce your prejudices. Read the other side, the opponents, and interact with their ideas. That will build clear, logical, incisive thinking.” (Not an exact quote). The same principle applies here.
Does anyone know a single charismatic who believes that charismatic doctrine and practice was fairly represented at Strange Fire? I’ve talked to enough Calvinists to know that they feel like John 3:16 and other such conferences have grossly misrepresented their views. Non-Calvinists feel caricatured by some Calvinist representations.
Duh. If you want to know what dispensationalists believe, read scholarly dispensationalists, not those who disdain the doctrine. Read charismatics (the more reasonable ones), to find out what their beliefs really are.
Why not a conference in which a Calvinist and a non-Calvinist are each asked to address, in sequence, the Five Points, then have Q&A after each one. What about a conference where cessationists and charismatics discuss their differing views of pneumatology and seek understanding, rather than just stand back and lob missiles from afar? Why not invite Rick Warren to come and speak to a group of those who disdain seeker strategies, to attempt to clarify, educate and sharpen one another.
Frankly, many of our conferences are just reinforcing our prejudices rather than challenging us to deeper and clearer thinking. We gather and reinforce our own sense of spiritual or theological superiority, but the Body of Christ is not edified and the Kingdom is not advanced.
2) This suggestion pertains to discussions between Christians. There may be some value to scholarly debates between biblical Christians and those from other groups that deny fundamental truth, but I would not suggest those as conferences for general spiritual encouragement.
I’m talking about Calvinism-related discussions, pneumatology issues, conferences on worship-style or church-planting strategies such things, especially if they stray into the “contra-conference” category.
3) Our natural tendency toward tribalism has to be resisted. Okay, confession time. The baseball playoffs are on as I write this, and the Boston Red Evils are one win away from going to the World Series. I HATE those guys. Viscerally. Passionately. I can’t watch their bearded, smug, so-an-so faces without disgust. Why? I’m part of a different tribe – the Pinstripes! The good guys. The 27-time champs.
Now, an admission. Boston Red Sox fans are not inherently evil. It pains me to say that, but it is true. There are people who cheer for the Sox who are not terrible human beings just because they have bad taste in baseball.
I know, it’s silly, but it makes a point. We have a tribal tendency and we tend to view those who are part of our tribe as better than those who are not. I’m part of the Baptist tribe. I am Baptist convictionally, but there is also a tribal component there. We like to believe that our views and convictions are 100% biblically based (ours, but not the other side’s!) But in our more honest moments we might admit that there is a smidgen of tribalism mixed in with our biblical convictions.
We need to fight that! Division is always easier in the church. It is our natural, fleshly tendency to divide into camps and disdain the other tribes as lesser. Such comes from our lower nature, not from the Spirit.
4) This is not to say that false doctrine should not be confronted. It should. I’d never give Benny Hinn a forum to speak to anyone. Those who deny the Trinity, the inerrancy of Scripture, or the blood atonement of Christ should not be given opportunity to deceive. But unless, like the more extreme cessationists, you view charismatics as the enemies of the gospel, we ought to honor one another and seek to build understanding.
5) This might have some positive impact on the Body. A friend of mine, a prominent charismatic pastor (and conference speaker – irony?) once told me this. “Dave, the church as a whole needs you Baptists. You guys have a depth of Bible knowledge that our circles often don’t have. You can help to ground us and keep us anchored. But you need to engage the greater church, not withdraw from it.”
He made a lot of sense to me. There is something to be learned and gained from various segments of the church. I am blessed by Calvinist friends and by non-Calvinist friends. I learn from both. I am blessed by the simple, passionate faith of the charismatics I know, while I think the cessationists have a role in helping us check the excesses of subjective Christianity. We benefit from involvement with one another.
When we sit back in our enclaves and lob nukes at each other, we do not gain that benefit.
6) Ultimately, these contra-conferences seem just plain unfair. A group gets together and talks about people who aren’t there, don’t have a voice and don’t have an opportunity to defend themselves, explain themselves or respond to charges. As the British used to say, it’s just bad form. Is it not a form of gossip – talking bad about people who are not there? It just doesn’t seem fair.
I am more than aware that my suggestion is impractical and will almost certainly be roundly ignored. I’m okay with that. I still think it is a good idea!
What say you?
Dave, If I may say this with irenic grace and kindness – – I proposed this numerous times; I proposed face to face exegetical dialog. I pointed out the issue of Non-Contradiction; differing positions cannot both be correct. Both may be incorrect but not both correct. Your response to me then was: “that will never happen”! I absolutely agree that we should conference with the stated purpose of making progress not simply lobbing verbal grenades at one another. My question to you is this – – what has changed since I proposed this months ago and today? Appreciate your response… Read more »
I don’t remember that, Tom. However, if you read my article, I said, “this will never happen” to my own proposal. I’m afraid we like attending conferences that reinforce our preconceptions and expose the flaws of our opponents too much.
Again, I have no recollection of our interaction on this, but I doubt I said that I am opposed to the idea. I just didn’t think it would happen. Still don’t.
I’ve never read one of your blogs I disagreed with more. Are there abusive conferences out there? Yeah I’m sure they exist. But I believe you misrepresented #Strangefire and in other descriptions miss the barre as well. #2 And #4 undermine your own arguments.
I believe your hearts in the right place – or somewhere near the right place. But I think you’re mountaining a molehill on the most part. You shoulda just written #3 and let it go at that.
Liberal! (Sorry).
I stand by my description of Strange Fire – it was designed by non-Charismatics to expose the faults of charismatics, without any input, rebuttal or anything from the subjects of the conference. Fundamentally unfair.
I think we tend to react only when our own ox is gored. I’ve heard Calvinists scream bloody murder over the unfairness of John 3:16 and such conferences, but cheer this one. Why? They were the objects in one and the subjects in another.
Can’t have it both ways.
Dave, Wasn’t “The Elephant Room” designed to accomplish what it is that you propose in this post? I thought it was a great idea. But, apparently there was/is enough opposition to that concept, ’til I don’t know if it will ever happen again. Your principal idea conveyed in this post is reasonable, rationale, and right(Baptist alliteration again). Perhaps, you ought to host/sponsor the very kind of conference that you speak of. I would certainly support such a conference. I agree with you: they are what’s needed most, and where learning the other side beliefs will be less agenda driven, and… Read more »
Dwight, I didn’t really follow the Elephant Room, only saw a little of the back and forth on social media.
I think that does raise a problem. There are groups/individuals who would be horrified if they gave the podium to someone they disagree with. However, I think it’s good for them!
Maui? That sounds pretty wonderful!
Come ON Bro. Dave. Start organizing. I think the tribes would come to western IA for such a time as you are envisioning. I can see the headline in Baptist Press………Theological Tribunal Terrorized by Tolerance. I say you’ve kind of like put your foot in your mouth again for the glory of God…..so Just Do it! Stir things up as an ex 2nd Vice President. I love you even if you STILL patronize those…………Yankees. I’ll be praying that God will stir up your organizational skills for your idea to be fulfilled in His time.
Too much road construction here and SUX (yes, folks, that is our actual airport designation – you can look it up) wouldn’t handle the traffic. But I’d love to be a part of something fruitful.
Dave, One more thought. Would not “The Jerusalem Conference” in Acts 15 be somewhat analogous to what you propose here? Hearing competent persons discuss both sides of an issue, and leaving with a greater understanding, and perhaps even a greater appreciation and respect for those on the other side sounds like to me a Kingdom idea–because the Kingdom of God is relational. This remark is not intended to “bash” the Strange Fire Conference, but one of the major challenges that I have with the strange fire conference is that it in no wise seeks to build a bridge of understanding… Read more »
I am afraid that “bridges of understanding” is not a goal for many. I fully agree with you. We need to police our own camps, and seek to pray, love and understand those of other camps in our common faith.
And, as to your point about Jerusalem in Acts 15, it is interesting to note that the result of hearing both sides was that God’s people came together, unity was increased and the gospel went forward.
Yes, that is an apt description. Would have made a wonderful scriptural buttress for my argument.
Dave,
There you have it. I will be awaiting your announcement regarding hosting “The Jerusalem Conference.” The topics & speakers that you select will be interesting.????
I’ll host that here on the Grand Prairie. I’ll cook, you guys preach/teach.
Doug & Dave, Didn’t finish my thought. But if either one of you are interested in discussing this idea further, please email me. If God is calling someone to do it, He will provide the funds. I am willing to invest prayer time in this, and a trip to Iowa or Arkansas to meet with one or both of you to discuss & pray about this idea further. Cash! I have none either. But God has no limits. Peter said, “silver & gold have I none” but they made it to the Jerusalem Council. Cash is not our biggest question.… Read more »
Done.
There is a big problem. Cash. I have none.
Can’t we make enough off of charging admission?
Assuming we’d get anyone to come!
Building’s free, and if we do it in the offseason, we can put everyone up in a deer camp or duck lodge.
You’ll have to forego speaker fees. I’ll pay you in venison.
And I’ve got a source for buffalo fish if Dr. McKissic can make it.
Dave & Doug, Whether 12 show up, 1200, or 200 should not drive the decision. The question is: (1) is there a need(perceived or real) to have such a conference? (2) is God calling anyone to host/sponsor/lead such a conference? The need I believe is evident based on numerous factors that are to many for me to enumerate hear. Is anyone called to initiate is a greater question. Jesus said, “Count up the Cost” before initiating building projects or war. A conference of this nature would be a building project & war. Therefore, Dave you are right about counting up… Read more »
My, David, you do seem to have been reading R.G. Lee, the master alliterator of all time (he memorized the dictionary, while setting under a tree at Furman University, then earned a Ph.D. in law from the Univ. of Chicago by distance learning; he wrote a dissertation, I think). He is the one writer who can make me stumble, when I try to read his sermons aloud or, at least, he could years ago. I haven’t tried to read him aloud lately. To avoid the evil you mentioned, I suggest that we have Bible conferences in our churches. We might… Read more »
I remember when “Bible” Conferences were common. Now, we tend to have “Book about the Bible” conferences or “Issue” Conferences.
Bible Conferences sounds good to me.
David: In the light of your comment here and the comments of others which follow, why not a conference on the reign of grace or sovereign grace? The reign of grace idea is clearly stated by Paul in Romans 5. Assign every speaker that subject and that text; it would demand thought, preparation, integrity, carefulness, prayer like no one ever dreamed. By the way I have the book on that conference in 2007. One would need to have all sides represented, provide for discussion groups with two leaders, advocates of one position or the other, but with the proviso that… Read more »
Dave,
Would the Building Bridges conference held at Southeastern Seminary fit the bill for the type of conference you are advocating? I felt they tried to have dialogue. Even though I disagree with you on some issues I read your blog almost daily and receive your email posts. Blessings my brother.
Not familiar with that Conference. When was it? I’m stuck up here in Iowa and I don’t hear about so much of what goes on.
Dave, it was 2007 or 2008 at Ridgecrest. CB and I went over for it.
I have some pictures I took there, somewhere on this thing and if I can find them, I can pin it down.
11/27-28/2007.
I dont know if I’ve ever been to a conference or watched one on video that wasnt “agin'” something and not “fer” something else…and visey versey.
Dave, The conference I was referencing was in 2007. It was the Building Bridges Conference: Southern Baptist & Calvinism. The speakers were Ed Stetzer, David Dockery, Tom Nettles, Malcom Yarnelll, Jeff Noblit, Sam Waldron, David Nelson, Charles Lawless, Nathan Finn, Ken Keathley, Greg Welty, Daniel Akins and Tom Ascol. It was sponsored by Lifeway ( I believe) and held at the Lifeway Ridgecrest Conference Center. You can search for it. I believe all of it is still online. I was impressed by the lineup of Godly men with different views and the open discussion that was held. May God continue… Read more »
I was only starting to reengage in national SBC workings at that time. That is precisely the kind of conference I am talking about.
But according to my memory, the lines were drawn differently back then. The whole Calvinist vs Non-Calvinist lines were not drawn as deeply then.
Yes, I wish we’d have this exact kind of conference. Bingo.
If those of differing views were to speak at the same gathering, you would have a debate not a conference.
Steven, In 2007 our church hosted a “Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit” with ’bout 200 paid registered attendees. Both sides were represented & shared relatively equal platform time. Men such as Bart Barber &, Robin Foster represented cessationism. Sam Storms, Alan Cross & Wade Burleson represented continuationism. It was not a debate it was a conference. Relationships were strengthened, not broken. I have preached this year in the pulpit of two Anglo pastors-both cessationist-but who did not allow my continiuationist theology to stand in the way of fellowship. Who would have thought a blogger from Iowa would have been… Read more »
As an attendee at that particular Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit, I can say that it was one of the best, and most well-balanced conferences sponsored by a Christian church or organization that I’ve ever attended. It was informative, the content was solidly Biblical, the tone was respectful and extremely tolerant, and there was no attempt to force anyone into a specific viewpoint or perspective. The worship and the preaching was tremendously inspiring and spirit-filled. I still pull out the CD’s and listen to the content. I’m not big on doctrinal conferences, largely because the ones I have attended… Read more »
I recall that one, too, Dwight. It was, indeed, good.
Debate? ….It all depends on how much prayer for unity preceeds the conference. Decide guidelines ahead. Are we brothers or opponents?
My favorite conference I have gone to the last 3 years that I find extremely helpful as the pastor of a single staff church in a rural area is put on every spring by the Rural Home Mission Association in Morton, IL. The speakers are great and the breakout sessions are very relevant to MINISTRY and sharing the GOSPEL vs. Calvinism, tongues or anything divisive. Last year the Keynote was Paige Patterson. The previous year it was DA Carson. Even though there are some SBC, UMC and Presbyterian folks attending,a large number of lesser known evangelical denominations and smaller non-denominational… Read more »
Dave,
You say “At Strange Fire, charismatics were talked about, but not listened to.” In fairness, wouldn’t you agree that the presenters would have “listened to” their opponents by reading their books, listening to their sermons, and interviewing people who followed their ministry? It seems wrong to assume that just because a charismatic was not invited to speak that somehow the other sides views were not taken into account or fairly presented.
Adam
Seeing some of the misrepresentations, I wonder if Charismatics were “listened to” or simply caricatured.
I am on the fence about all of this speaking in tongues stuff. I dont consider hand-raising charismatic, but I have seen a few folks fall on the floor, gagging…and it just seemed strange to me. sorry. However, I do think they were convinced it was authentic. I do have a few questions for the church historians of SBC Voices: What is the history of “charismatic outpourings of the Spirit” down through the centures? Is it something that just recently popped up? What did the church fathers think about it? Was this a common thing over the last 2000 years?… Read more »
1. I don’t necessarily think every conference needs to be a “both sides” conference. We sure wouldn’t do “both sides” on health and wealth gospel, works salvation, etc. Every conference has the right to address the topics it desires to address. Otherwise, it would be a debate, right? If you want to have a debate, have a debate. But don’t insist that conferences need to be debates. They don’t. 2. This whole “AGAINST” thing needs to be reconsidered. In the process of advocating FOR cessationism, MacArthur and company will appear to the continuationist to be bashing them. In the process… Read more »
I think it is safe and fair to characterize Strange Fire as a “contra-conference.” Several of the conferences in the Calvinism quarrel also well fit that moniker.
In order to promote one’s own view it is necessary to expose the weaknesses in the opposing view. From a Red Sox fan’s viewpoint, you are contra-Boston, but as you see it, you’re pro-New York.
“Why we are right and the are wrong” conferences or even “This vs. That” conferences are not of much value for me. I would not feel right asking my church for money and time off to attend them. They are not educational or learning opportunities that will help me be a better pastor as much as they are theological sporting events. They may be fun and entertaining events to be at. But how much biblical insight or spiritual inspiration and motivation takes place? As an analogy, how do you get to be a better baseball player, by going to a… Read more »
I find it very interesting that you suggest making these conferences about unity but your very first sentence seems to strongly impugn the reformed brothers “gospel” (as they see it). The implication being that their understanding of the gospel is wrong. Most of their gospel presentations are 1. God is Holy; 2. Man is Sinful; 3. Christ Redeems us; 4. Repent and Believe. I find it very difficult to harmonize your characterization of them with this: “Stop having them and stop attending them. Replace them with conferences where representatives of both sides converse to discuss issues, promote understanding and build… Read more »
Actually, I am on the Calvinist side of things, Gordon. However, I have long had a problem with the way many Reformed believers use the tern gospel, gospel-centered, etc. I’ve written about it.
You have completely misunderstood me and my point.
Many of the Calvinist conferences use the word Gospel and I did not want those on the other side to think I was equating Calvinism and the Gospel, as some have. My purpose in that statement was to avoid giving offense to non-Calvinists.
I have not read all your previous post I’ll go back and check. I was only going by what you said this morning. Sorry
Dear Gordon: It is hard to imagine, until you have been exposed to such, just how distracting and divisive some folks can be. Their anti-attitude, once in a while appropriate, comes to dominate everything they do or say. What David is implying (as I understand and could be wrong) has to do with the incredible amount of negativism, some folks can develop in reaction to offenses that they have received, real or imagined. They often forget the matter of forgiveness. O yes, they can so state the Gospel that they, and only they, have the right definition of the Gospel.… Read more »
I believe in free speech, religious liberty, and a perfect right to have most any kind of conference. Most all conferences are one sided in one way or another. Should Christians be required to include Hindus and Muslims in their conferences? Should Muslims include the others in theirs? Should Baptists be required to include non-Baptist viewpoints and speakers in their conferences? Should Democrats be required to have Republicans or Libertarians in their conferences? Years ago they had some popular Premillennial Bible Conferences. I’m premillenial and have no problem with that. I also have no problem with folks having Postmillennial or… Read more »
The danger, of course, would be continued fracturing, splintering and disunity – and the eventual balkanization and destruction of the SBC.
Sometimes wonder, in comments, if people actually read the post.
To be more direct, NO ONE is talking about inhibiting free speech or freedom of religion. Honestly, why would you bring that up. Of course, people have the American right of free association. However, we are responsible to a higher kingdom not just to do as we please, but to do what is best, for the Kingdom. I think a bunch of people on one side of an issue getting together and talking about the failings of the other side is just not helpful. You are free to do it, and I am free to continue believing it is a… Read more »