John Vaughn: " Evangelical Fundamentalist Convergence"?

The Proclaim & Defend article rightly notes the general contradiction between convergence and separation, but does not really explore the question “from whom should we separate?”. Personally, I feel comfortable separating from people who waffle on the Trinity (Elephant Room 2) or downplay the authority of Scripture, but there are a tremendous number of evangelicals who affirm the Fundamentals, the Solas, and the Trinity, and from them, I don’t feel comfortable separating.

And by “affirm”, I don’t mean just lip service….but rather that (within some allowance for differing views) that one’s actions also reflect belief in these principles.

Without even buying the magazine, you can tell what the FBFI’s concerns are by the titles of the articles. Vaughn wrote:

Nevertheless, something is going on—something that looks very much like the self-styled “Neo- Evangelicalism” of sixty years ago; something that in its efforts to engage the culture seems to be, again, embracing the culture. Therein lies the danger of the pursuit of relevance as an end in itself. In seeking to stay in touch with the ever-changing culture, churches can think themselves separate from it while moving away from their moorings. They can soon occupy the space that belonged to the world not long ago, no longer secure on the foundations on which they were built.

The article he cited by Ben Wright basically focused on MacLachan, Bauder and Doran. Are these the leaders Vaughn is warning against? Or, is he perhaps afraid that their warnings have produced this alleged “neo-neo-evangelicalism?” Who is he talking about? He continues:

This issue of FrontLine offers an appeal for wisdom, discernment, and caution in this regard. It is not addressed just to those who have rejected separatism in favor of convergence nor to those who have never been separatists so much as to separatists seeking answers—those who are resisting pressure to conform their ministries to this movement. However, if anything in this issue comes as a rebuke to those who are dividing their churches over changes they promised not to make when they were called, or to those who have brought their churches to the brink of ruin with premature change, we pray it will be taken as a loving rebuke to be considered carefully.

What is this “movement?” Is he referring to local churches pastored by younger fundamentalists which have heeded the warnings from MacLachlan, Bauder and Doran? The “movement” is not defined, and if this article is supposed to whet the appetite for folks to know more, it’s not doing a very good job. It looks to me like wagon-circling by the FBFI … again. It might not be, but the introductory article doesn’t help matters.

The topics are:

• Sola Scriptura. Why is this a problem with fundamentalists? Not sure, really. Perhaps the article is a defense of standards against the charge of alleged legalism.
• Why I Left. The teaser for this one is particularly interesting; “long-established churches are being changed through the hidden agenda of Convergent leadership.” Hidden agendas, sinister plots … one conjures up images of young pastors sitting fireside, drinking “grape juice” from balloon snifters while perusing their contraband copies of Calvin’s Institutes or Sproul’s Chosen by God … and MacLachlan’s Authentic Fundamentalism?
• Music. Perhaps a separate topic, but I’m not really convinced that a change in music is inherently tied to a sinister and hidden agenda. Correlation does not equal causation.
• Leading Change. Looks interesting. If a Pastor has a “hidden agenda,” then he’s lying to the congregation.
• Alcohol. Please. No. More.

Reading between the lines (but hopefully not too far), I conclude this “hidden agenda” which the FBFI fears involves (1) some strange rejection or denial of sola scriptura, (2) hidden and dark agendas for “change;” (3) music different from the Sword of the Lord hymnal, and (4) alcohol.

I also have no choice but to see this article as a not-so-veiled attack against Bauder and Doran. The article Vaughn cited includes this bit:

the theological Fundamentalism of Bauder and Doran represents a matured strain of Fundamentalism that intends to expose and disassociate from the atheological (sometimes called cultural) Fundamentalism that has dominated many segments of separatist Fundamentalism in recent decades.

Whether or not creedal Evangelicalism and theological Fundamentalism can recognize, appreciate, and cultivate common ground and cooperation remains to be seen. Even if they do, they’ll face obstacles of no small size. But the coincidence of these developments presents an opportunity for principled leaders who haven’t yet forgotten how to listen to one another.

What other conclusion can I come to?

Could somebody just tell me what this “hidden agenda” is? In plain language? Who is involved in it? Who are the leaders? Where can I read what they’re writing? Is it Bauder? Doran? Are all these adjectives simply synonyms for … (wait for it) … (keep waiting) … (almost there) … Calvinists!!!???

Tyler, you’re getting into things that are part of the impetus behind why SI was founded back in 2005 — discussion on what “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving” actually looks like, and maybe even more, what it doesn’t. Frontline sometimes has some interesting things to read, but at other times, you get the feeling they are still trying to hold on to what “cultural” Fundamentalism once valued, as if older *expressions* of fundamentalism are equivalent to what it’s really all about, and *any* movement at all is seen as movement in the wrong direction.

Dave:

I just wish they’d simply spell out what they’re talking about in this piece. What is this magazine issue even about? Who is the target? Who are they warning against? Are they being deliberately vague out of political correctness, is it badly written, or am I just a fool?

[dcbii]

Tyler, you’re getting into things that are part of the impetus behind why SI was founded back in 2005 — discussion on what “A Fundamentalism Worth Saving” actually looks like, and maybe even more, what it doesn’t. Frontline sometimes has some interesting things to read, but at other times, you get the feeling they are still trying to hold on to what “cultural” Fundamentalism once valued, as if older *expressions* of fundamentalism are equivalent to what it’s really all about, and *any* movement at all is seen as movement in the wrong direction.

Sorry, just couldn’t resist the header, but agreed greatly with Dave here.

I remember buying Pastor MacLachlan’s book “Recovering Authentic Fundamentalism” pretty soon after I moved to Minnesocold and 4th in 2003, and I’ve been a big fan of Bauder for about the same period of time. Along those lines, I must also admit that there are some fundamentalists from whom I separate, more or less at the point where arguments for cultural fundamentalism start to infringe on doctrines like Sola Scriptura.

For example, when someone prefers the KJV for reasons like plural/singular you, style, comfort, and accuracy for those who understand Jacobean English well, I’ve got no problem with that. The most I might say is “you might do well to use a Bible your hearers and friends will understand better.” On the flip side, when someone argues without evidence that Arius and his cronies deliberately corrupted the texts, or writes book length personal attacks, then I’ve got to suggest that they’re not just attacking an argument or even a person or group of persons. They’re attacking Scripture as we know it.

Same basic idea with a couple of social issues that will remain unnamed here. Argue one ought to limit one’s freedom for the weaker brother? Amen and Halleluiah. Argue that words related to those social issues in Scripture don’t mean what every translator since the 70 in Alexandria have said they meant? Sorry, folks, you’re stomping on Sola Scriptura and the inerrancy of Scripture there.

I hope that Proclaim & Defend isn’t falling into these traps, but many do, and it’s very, very sad.

Yes. At this rate fundamentalists will issue a response to Matthew Vines’ book sometime in 2030. The heirs of a proud and honorable tradition of militancy against liberalism and apostasy are reduced to warning of the “hidden agendas” and clandestine plots of young fundamentalists who are “new” neo-evangelicals. Of course, we really don’t know who is being referred to.

Have fun, boys. Ciao. I have to get back to the Institutes and plot my next move …

[TylerR]

Yes. At this rate fundamentalists will issue a response to Matthew Vines’ book sometime in 2030. The heirs of a proud and honorable tradition of militancy against liberalism and apostasy are reduced to warning of the “hidden agendas” and clandestine plots of young fundamentalists who are neo-neo-evangelicals. Of course, we really don’t know who is being referred to.

Have fun, boys. Ciao. I have to get back to the Institutes and plot my next move …

It’s about time you responded to the apostasy of John Calvin, Tyler. 480 years. Yeesh, and we’re picking on Proclaim and Defend for being slow on the draw?

Seriously, given that a lot of theological error is really recycled—e.g. the Jehovah’s Witnesses are more or less just recycling things like the Arian heresy, no?—we can tolerate a fair amount of delay in responding to theological errors. By the time we get around to it, it will, like bell bottoms or butterfly collars, come back into style somewhere. What we cannot tolerate is arguing vaguely, and sad to say, our movement has gotten pretty good at it. Even a lot of adjectives that are used—“worldly”, “sensual”, and the like—don’t refer to anything specific.

And, to paraphrase Pr. MacLachlan, we pull this kind of stunt and then wonder why the world describes fundamentalism as “a lot of fun, a lot of duh, but not much mental about it.”

You wrote:

And, to paraphrase Pr. MacLachlan, we pull this kind of stunt and then wonder why the world describes fundamentalism as “a lot of fun, a lot of duh, but not much mental about it.”

The FBFI doesn’t appear to be doing much to counter this stereotype. It is one reason why many younger fundamentalists are exasperated with the whole thing. Regarding the Vines remark, my point is that fundamentalists have all but ceded responsibility to conservative evangelicals for responding to current apostasy and compromise. Instead, some prefer to write murky screeds about “hidden agendas” and other allegedly nefarious acts … while remaining mysteriously vague about who the culprits are. It is unfortunate.

Name names and be specific or why bother? All I get from the teaser article is that Bauder and Doran are the root of this wicked “convergence.”

Tyler, I’ve seen this wicked convergence up close. The header is a quote he made of the response he and Dr. Beacham got after publishing One Bible Only about the KJVO movement (which sadly did not penetrate the minds of many adherents), and I’ve even heard him note the way Samoset greeted the Pilgrims, in church no less. He even periodically comes to a church where his sermons are rendered unintelligible to most people in the building—he preaches at Rochester Chinese Church, which meets in the building owned by Calvary Baptist. That’s gotta be some kind of charismatic speaking in tongues thing, donchathink?

I’m pretty sure that the only thing that keeps him safe is ready access to both firearms and lutefisk, the latter of which is of course more deadly. And of course, I aspire to be part of this horrible, wicked convergence, as you no doubt guessed. Though I haven’t gotten mustasche wax yet.

Will be eagerly awaiting your denunciation of the Tyrant of Geneva, of course. :^) Maybe, maybe, maybe….with some luck and a lot of hard work, along with five fundamentals and five solas and a Trinity and a hypostatic union in our tool-chest, we too can be denounced in certain forii…..but with no specific allegations, of course.

It’s easy, after almost a century now, to lose sight of what biblical fundamentalism was born to do. There was a pretty specific target and specific alliances and break-ups to oppose that target (the target was Bible-denying ‘modernism,’ a.k.a. the higher criticism—though there was also, with much less consensus—a cultural target: various changes in American culture identified with worldliness).

It should be expected that over time the landscape would change in such a way there not only are there (a) different targets, but also (b) different alliances and anti-alliances.

The movement was about trying to solve some problems biblically… not about preserving itself or the distinctive identity it eventually developed. So what are today’s greatest threats to biblical Christianity and what sort of alliances and anti-alliances does today’s fight require? A leader has to have clear answers to these questions in mind before he can articulate a clear, sturdy, and weighty call to form or reject alliances. If he’s going to be persuasive he’ll need to not only have answers in mind but also communicate them.

Tyler -

I think you have your answers already as to who the articles are addressing and targeting.

Neo Evangelicals were people who reached out to apostate organizations to cooperate in gospel sharing ministry, when it was clear that those in the apostate organizations did not share the same orthodox Christian doctrines.

The FBFI is addressing fundamentalists within its own camp are now reaching out to CEs (or even further to the left), not necessarily to partner in ministry, but to receive ideas on ministry change. In this sense, you have correctly ascertained that these current wandering fundamentalists are “Neo-Neo Evangelicals.” These are people and ministries who are straying outside the camp for pragmatic reasons. The FBFI feels that there are irreconcilable doctrinal differences of worship and personal separation between CEs and Fundamentalists that cannot justify cooperation in ministry or method.

Bauder and Doran are of concern to Mr. Vaughan since they have not utterly repudiated the ministry of the CEs, and as a result have helped given the CE ministries a legitimacy and standing within the fundamentalist community. Since 2010, Bauder has also contributed to Central Seminary’s statement on Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism which has further repudiated various Fundamentalist practices.

The FBFI response is needed to allow Fundamentalists to reconsider the idea of adopting CE methods, and also to defend the movement from escalating criticism.

Nothing sinister or hidden. It’s just one organization defending its position and trying to persuade its constituency to stay within the camp.

In other words, more wagon circling. That seems to be all the FBFI does. Shouldn’t they get dizzy after so long?