July 09, 2007
Whetstone Conference
“whetstone” according to dictionary.com is:
1. a stone for sharpening cutlery or tools by friction.
2. anything that sharpens: a whetstone for dull wits.
Last week we (the Metras and us) attended the Whetstone Conference which is the ministry of Mount Calvary Baptist Church and the home pulpit of one of my favorite Bible teachers, Mark Minnick.
We were definitely sharpened.
Actually, this was my second Whetstone. Mount Calvary hosts one of these conferences every four years or so. My heart was so spiritually enriched back in 2003 I promised myself that I would go as often as I could.
I have been blessed to be able to go to many different conferences. I am loved by a very generous and dynamic church which, though small, is committed to providing spiritual nourishment for its leadership. Therefore, I have been to a number of good conferences. The Whetstone Conference is unique.
Here’s why:
1. It is not an advertised conference. The conference is designed primarily for the many men who were at one time members of Mount Calvary Baptist Church and are now serving the Lord in other parts of the country and world. In a sense, it is much like a homecoming; a class reunion.
This is not to say that outsiders are not welcome. However, those of us who were outsiders are there either because we were directly invited by one of the members of the church, related to someone in the church, or by Good Providence have our name on their mailing list. But it is clearly a local church affair.
2. The Whetstone Conference does not bait you with big names. In fact, the evening messages are all delivered by relatively unknown men to anyone outside Mount Calvary Baptist Church. I did not know any of the men who spoke in the evening except for my own brother, Tim Bixby. He spoke on Thursday night and delivered an outstanding exposition of Deuteronomy 8.
3. Having said that the Whetstone Conference does not bait you with big names on the roster should not be understood to mean that the speaking is done by men unworthy of our utmost attention. In fact, the morning sessions included Mark Minnick, Bruce McCalister, Stephen Hankins, Thurmond Wisdom, Ken Hay, and Dan Brooks - all well-known names to those from BJU circles. With the exception of Ken Hay’s session (which was more for the professional side of ministry), all the others gave 1.5 hour long lectures on the personal life of the pastor. Very convicting. Very helpful.
4. This conference focuses relentlessly on the inner man of the preacher. When I came to Whetstone back in 2003 I remember weeping. I had become cynical and actually doubted that spiritually-minded men existed within fundamentalism. I was beginning to think that they were all issues-oriented and assessed men merely by the external positions. This place is different. I love the unashamed, almost pietistic, spirituality of the leadership at MCBC.
5. There are many stereotypes of fundamentalists - mostly negative. It is assumed that churches that have strong, separatist positions (particularly in life-style matters) are also sectarian. And some might assume that Mount Calvary, home of the head-coverings for women, and the bastion for very, very conservative living would be a hot-bed for sectarian, fundamentalist rancor toward all believers that do not see life as they see it. I must loudly assert that this is definitely NOT the case at Mount Calvary Baptist Church.
Mark Minnick models, I think, a largess of soul and a catholicity of spirit toward the whole Body of Christ, including many people with whom he strongly disagrees. He is one who can preach with a force of intellect and spiritual authority that is nearly unparalleled by his contemporaries against the errors that he perceives in the Body of Christ, naming the defenders of those errors, and still radiate a spirit of love toward the very people whose positions he is demolishing. One pastor friend of mine who knows Mark Minnick well says that Mark is the only one he knows that can preach with full conviction and persuasiveness against everything that he (my friend) does then come down from the pulpit and hug him. expressing genuine interest and concern for the ministry of my friend.
5. This is the only conference you’ll go to where nearly all the women wear head-coverings. To me it is distractive. Some of the hats are down-right funny looking. But as you would expect, Mark delivers powerful arguments in favor of head-coverings for women. I listened to one that he delivered way back in the late nineties (I think) and re-listened to it a couple of times. I wasn’t completely persuaded that he had strong enough argument. However, his most recent explanation to his congregation on 4/22/07 is frightenly convincing! The scholarship is more up to date and he dealt with the whole issue dialectically (which I am beginning to assume is his typical modus operandi for addressing controversial subject matter).
6. The church generously provided $100 worth of books from their bookstore to each pastor and $35 for each of the pastor’s wives. This kind of generosity is precious and so very much appreciated. Of course, they probably know that some guys are like me: we take a $100 coupon into the store and walk out having spent that plus $200. more.
7. The church ministers to the pastor’s children. Our children loved the daily lessons and games with the dedicated volunteers from MCBC. They even loaded up 85 people and took them to the Greenville Zoo! Truly, Whetstone ministered to the whole family.
8. Minnick’s lecture “Bring the Books” was worth the whole conference.
9. Minnick’s lecture on the minister’s devotional life was worth the whole conference.
10. Dan Brooks’ message on the personal life of the minister was worth the whole conference.
11. Robert Vincent’s outstanding lecture/sermon/history lesson on “Taking Time to Be Holy: Allowing the counsel of Scripture and wise men to condition my ministry priorities” was worth the whole conference.
12. Tim Bixby’s Thursday night message, “Remembering the lessons of adversity in the time of prosperity” was almost worth the entire conference. And I don’t say that just because I am his brother. I think that many people saw that what I have been saying about him being one of the best kept secrets in the larger Greenville area is not brotherly bias. He is a gifted exegete. Deuteronomy 8 was really opened up to us.
13. This conference was not professional. Those are necessary, but this was intensely personal. It hurt. It both severely inflicted and compassionately licked wounds. The speakers were daringly transparent.
14. Finally, the conference is free.
While I do not agree with all of the positions of Mount Calvary Baptist Church and actually think that there are some weaknesses, not in their understanding of but in their practice of the church, I cannot help but rejoice whenever I am there because I feel myself to be in the presence of beauty. Local churches that love Christ are beautiful whether they wear suits or shorts, veils or hats. Though I do not embrace many of their external values, my heart almost literally pounds in sync with their passion for Jesus Christ and I very much feel myself to be in the presence of a holy family of brothers and sisters when I am among them, suitless though I may be. I am so thankful for this.
I’m glad I have family there. I’m glad I’m on the mailing list.
This entry was posted in the following categories: Conferences
Good. Thanks.
I have been a dull wit that at one time was sharpened there at MCBC. Living in Idaho now, I need much more of the same experience.
But I can not recall ever being distracted by the hats.
Posted by: Todd Wood at July 9, 2007 05:44 PMSo Bob, how would you compare your time at different churches in the Greenville area, given their “variety”? In what way were you blessed in each context?
PM
Posted by: Phil Masters at July 10, 2007 05:50 AMTodd, I remember you, I think. You were one of the preachers at one of the Whetstones, were you not?
Actually, head-coverings (i.e. veils) would not be distractive to me. In fact, it could appear quite worshipful. Hats, however, seem to me to be a bit accessory-ish, almost a contradiction to what I think the spirit of the symbol is supposed to be and more consistent with 1 Timothy 2. But, really, I overstate the whole thing. I have always thought that if people are going to insist on head-coverings then to make it an accessory seems to be pure externalism. To modestly put a veil over one’s head when entering a place of worship like some Plymouth Brethren I know seems to be going all the way with both the symbol and the spirit.
Another side thought: It is interesting to me that the Emerging Church element that is recovering so much of the “ancient church” has not, as far as I know, recovered head-coverings for women. This speaks volumes, I think, about their sincerity. It would seem to me that if they were very sincere about doing worship the old ways that head-coverings on women would be one of the easiest things to prove historically.
But, I don’t want to appear judgmental of the brethren at MCBC. I respect them. They certainly have good reason for their head-covering and I think the reason many of us banter about it is simply because we don’t have the courage to implement it if we were to come to the conclusion that it is the best way. That’s probably why many avoid looking too closely at the text…
I have always said that 1 Corinthians 11 clearly calls for head-coverings .. but for the Corinthians, not us. Minnick’s arguments are strong, very strong, that Paul’s command is not culturally limited. I think people ought to hear him out before they over-simplify his position… I said “frightely convincing” because I flat-out don’t want to implement it if it’s true. That’s ugly, I know, but I would need God’s grace both to convince me of it and give me the courage to implement.
In other words, I am always suspicious of my arguments against something when I am fully aware that what I am arguing against is something I really, really don’t like. Or, another way… when what I am defending is the easy way, perhaps my flesh is more mingled in my argument than I care to admit.
I’m not saying MCBC’s application is right. But I am saying that we ought to be honest enough to admit that whenever we approach a biblical, theological, historical analysis of what they practice we are contaminated by a bias against it.
Phil Masters, I had a great time at North Hills, love the church, and plan to write on that as well…
Posted by: Bob at July 11, 2007 12:12 PMthanks for the links. i’ve been enjoying what they’ve put online.
for headcoverings, David Hoosaflook has done quite a paper on that.
Posted by: anne sokol at July 13, 2007 08:02 AMChecking out your blog, good stuff.
www.matthewsblog.waynesborochurchofchrist.org
Posted by: Matthew at July 26, 2007 09:24 AM