What, precisely, is a “Convergent” fundamentalist? That is, what are the “marks” of a “Convergent” fundamentalist?

I find it interesting that FBFI published the following definition of fundamentalism in its resolution list from the years 1978-1980.

80. 01 REGARDING FUNDAMENTALISM

A fundamentalist is a genuine believer in the Person, Work, and Doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ who:

1. Regards the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as the verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God;
2. Recognizes the Bible as the authoritative voice of God on all issues pertaining to life, including civil, social, and spiritual;
3. Endeavors to practice Biblical conduct in all areas of his life;
4. Believes in all the foundational truths of historic Christianity, including:
a. The inspiration of the Bible
b. The virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ
c. The Deity of Christ
d. The bodily resurrection, ascension, and literal return of the Lord Jesus Christ
e. Salvation by grace through faith and regeneration by the Holy spirit
f. The eternal destinies of Heaven or Hell
g. Man is a sinner by nature and by choice
5. Earnestly contends for the faith, which includes a militant defense and proclamation of the faith and separation from all forms of heresy, apostasy, unbelief, and inclusivism, direct or indirect.
6. Is compelled by love to expose error, within and without the household of faith.

The 1978-1980 fundamentalism definition was terminated in 1981 and was replaced by

81. 01 REGARDING FUNDAMENTALISM

The FBF believes that there is a subtle undermining of historic fundamentalism by definition; that a true fundamentalist not only
believes in such fundamentals of the faith as the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, the incarnation, virgin birth, substitutionary
atonement, bodily resurrection and glorious ascension and second coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, the new birth through regeneration
by the Holy Spirit, the resurrection of the ungodly to final judgment and eternal death, and resurrection of saints to eternal life, but
also exposes and separates from all ecclesiastical denial of that faith and refuses to be tolerant of believers who are tolerant of
unbelievers; we believe that those who hide their “soft” stand on separation by hiding behind what they term “the modern fad of
secondary separation” espouse a position that will eventually destroy historic fundamentalism.

If anyone from FBFI cares to comment and is knowledgeable about the change, could the following questions be answered?

Why were points #1 - #6 from 1978-1980 rewritten, and why couldn’t the issue of refusing to be tolerant of other believers have been published as a #7?

Also, should we view the issue of separation to be an omission to the original fundamentalist definition, or an addition?

Would it be fair to characterize a “convergent fundamentalist” as one who held to the original 1978-1980 definition, but didn’t fully subscribe to the 1981 revision?

John B. Lee

Thanks to Don for agreeing to respond on his blog, publicly. Here is my position on this:

  • If a position is laid out in a public forum (e.g. as a feature issue in Frontline magazine which has been distributed into thousands, and perhaps tens of thousands, of homes)
  • then nobody should be upset if critics and friends (in this case, I am both) respond publicly in return
  • If someone is not willing to deal with public criticism and interaction, then do not state your position on certain issues in a public forum for interaction

Some in the FBFI may be upset because I published my response publicly. Well, the original piece was published publicly. My response (which was really not a response at all, but a call for clarification on a number of points) will therefore be just as public. If the FBFI is as serious as it says about confronting the excesses of “Convergent” fundamentalism, then they ought to welcome this kind of dialogue. I am glad Don has decided to respond. I hope other people from the FBFI do, too.

Isn’t that how … iron sharpens iron?

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

[JBL]

If anyone from FBFI cares to comment and is knowledgeable about the change, could the following questions be answered?

Why were points #1 - #6 from 1978-1980 rewritten, and why couldn’t the issue of refusing to be tolerant of other believers have been published as a #7?

Quickly, because I have to be out the door five minutes ago… If a position statement is repealed, it is no longer published. Since both are published, we would see the second to be an expansion or restatement of the first. There was a period where resolutions (as we used to call them) were repeated year after year (not in total, but at least some of them). We have gotten away from doing that.

[JBL]

Also, should we view the issue of separation to be an omission to the original fundamentalist definition, or an addition?

Would it be fair to characterize a “convergent fundamentalist” as one who held to the original 1978-1980 definition, but didn’t fully subscribe to the 1981 revision?

To the second question, no, since I see separation in the first statement also, just more fleshed out in the second.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Mark_Smith]

Is this really a common expression? Other than Dever’s book, which I have never read, I have never heard the expression.

I’m not sure how widely the expression is used but it has been around for awhile. For example the Belgic Confession: “The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing sin” (Belgic Confession, Article 29). The number may be different but I think the intention is the same - to describe what a true church is in contrast to false churches that use the name “church” but have departed from Scripture.

[Don Johnson]

We will get further if we talk to one another like Christians. I haven’t seen a lot of that in the threads on this topic in the last week or so. We can do better.

I agree. My appreciation to you and Tyler for striking this chord together.

From my generation to yours, I trust that we will do our very best to listen, even when we disagree. We all need to be very careful to express ourselves as thoughtfully, graciously and clearly as possible. For myself, I find that Matthew 7:1-5 never grows obsolete. I usually find a lot of myself in the so-called problems I critique in others. I’m still working on my beams. If you have any advice for how to get rid of them, I’ll listen ;)

Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com

These were written almost forty years ago. I appreciate the insight.

I believe I am correct then in assessing that FBFI is saying that believers who are “tolerant of believers who are tolerant of unbelievers” were never true historic fundamentalists.

John B. Lee

The concept of “marks” of a church isn’t new. I’ve seen it in most systematic theologies. For a class I taught in church a few years ago, I made a comparison chart of different theologians (from days lone gone and current) and how they define what a “church” is. It’s a common term.

As a sidenote, I really recommend John Hammett’s book on Baptist polity. What makes his book so interesting is he doesn’t just state a position. He critiques where many Baptist churches fall short today, and suggests ways forward. Very thought-provoking - especially his remarks on how to make the ordinances a meaningful part of worship again. Well worth the money. I emailed him and expressed my appreciation a few years back, and he was kind enough to respond.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

From what I understand, Dever has explicitly and publicly claimed that he is a ‘fundamentalist’. If I were in a position to talk with Piper personally, I would have quite a few polite questions about how he can take that name and maintain relationships with people who are/were walking headlong into error (Andy Stanley, Mark Driscoll from several years back, etc). I have never really considered a specific position on the Millennium to equate with Fundamentalist/ism. I am very comfortable with the Premill / Pretribulation position but could consider fellowship/co-belligerency with a Bible preaching and Pre-wrath evangelist (for example).

Devers links to Dr. Minnick’s message on Fundamentalism on his website, for goodness’ sake: https://9marks.org/interview/fundamentalism-and-separation-mark-minnick/

​MacArthur is a fundamentalist in my book. The FBFI, from what I am seeing in posts here and on their published articles, is heading towards the ‘hyper-separatist / hyper-fundamentalist’ column of Jim’s PDF, and that’s a shame. I hope that they can change course.

"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 groaned when I saw this topic coming up again…. and then groaned again louder. Psyched up and took a look at the thread. To my surprise… it’s not too bad. (If I were a pagan, I’d knock on wood at this pt.)

Seems like as I get older there is less and less fight in me and more and more desire to see people understand one another.

Three cheers for mutual understanding!

And my salute to this closet fundamentalist…

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.

Aaron - this will be THE thread that finally resolves all the other threads on Fundamentalism. Trust us. :)

Seriously, I saw this article - Early Fundamentalism’s Legacy: What is It and Will It Endure through the 21st Century - at the DBTS Journal website tonight and figured I would pass it along for discussion/edification. I’m sure there are salient points made that have bearing on this topic.

"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

[Steve Davis]

I write as an interloper because you mentioned the “marks of a church.” Yesterday, along with the five other elders from our church, I attended my first 9Marks conference at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC, pastored by Mark Dever. The 9 Marks are a good place to start for the church. I was reminded that Dever was invited to a fundamentalist conference a few years ago and shared the platform with Drs. Jordan, Bauder, and Doran. It was a great “convergent” moment but many saw it as compromise since Mark Dever is an amillennial Southern Baptist who shares the platform with Mahaney, Keller, Piper, Mbewe, etc. There were probably a couple hundred mostly young men at the conference. Many are church planting; many are revitalizing churches. Not everyone there would partner with everyone else and I’m sure we could find something to disagree with. The problem with any Christian movement is when something or someone else becomes the center rather than Christ and the gospel. With cultural Fundamentalism separation and issues are at the center. If Christ and the gospel were at the center, separation would have its rightful place but not the center place. Your ‘marks of the church” also reminded me that God’s movement is the Church not parachurch organizations (as helpful as they might be in service to the Church).

I think this was the 2011 “Advancing The Church” conference at Calvary Lansdale. If anyone is interested in listening to the speaker panels, you can get the MP3s from my OneDrive here.

"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

“It was a great “convergent” moment but many saw it as compromise since Mark Dever is an amillennial Southern Baptist who shares the platform with Mahaney, Keller, Piper, Mbewe, etc.”
One of the aspects of modern fundamentalism that renders its heritage and motivations somewhat suspect, to my mind, is precisely this drift of dispensationalism from what must have originally been only a characteristic common to many fundamentalists to a nonnegotiable (even core) doctrine. As a highly conservative, Reformed Baptist, it is my Baptist covenant theology—not Bible versions, for I love the KJV; not music, for I hold to the Regulative Principle of Worship; not alcohol, for I don’t drink—that would hold fundamentalists back from considering me a fundamentalist and bar me from speaking in or even joining some of fundamentalist churches. Even causing many to label me a “liberal.” I find this situation somewhat telling, honestly, about the real priorities of many fundamentalists (most of whom would have nothing to do with this forum, might I add. Because you’re all “liberal compromisers” ;) ).

I’ve always seen “fundamentalism” as a militant and passionate philosophy for ministry and theology, not a movement per se. That is why I think James White and John MacArthur are “fundamentalists.” They’re about as militant as you can get. They’re just not the right kind of fundamentalists for some people.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

James White ARDENTLY says he is NOT a fundamentalist. James sees himself FIRMLY as a Reformed Christian. That is his identity. James White mocks and caricatures “fundamentalists” as KJV only dispensational wack-jobs… and that is being kind. By the way, I think James would agree with everything I wrote.