John Vaughn: " Evangelical Fundamentalist Convergence"?

My path has been similar to yours, including disassociating myself from the FBFI for similar reasons. Nobody noticed or responded to my correspondence and expression of concern.

According to the article I think we would be considered convergent but I don’t think anyone there is going to call either of us that in public.

I think that a lot of us Younger Fundamentalists / Convergents have been through situations that are similar to Dean’s. I’m not a pastor, but I know I have. Almost all of the friends I had in undergrad/grad school have undergone similar experiences.

Dean,

I changed translations at FBCT over 25 years ago. We use NASB regularly and ESV occasionally. Most of our Hymnody is traditional with some new songs by Chris Anderson and a small handful of songs such as “How Deep the Father’s Love For Us”. These songs have been arranged by very conservative hymn writers and I see no problem with them as such. None of the changes you made at Calvary should be problematic. In some IFB churches, even in Greenville, there is a strain of KJV onlyism, easy believism, Arminian theology, and a virulent anti-Calvinism. Sounds to me that was the buzz-saw you may have run into. My former members who are current members at Calvary loved you and speak highly of you. Happy you are at Faith Baptist College and Seminary. You are a great addition to the faculty there. Heard your president speak at Sproul’s conference this summer. He did a fantastic job and will be a great leader of that school. All the best!

This is kind of unrelated, but since Kevin Bauder and music are elements of this discussion, I’ll put a plug in for Josh Bauder’s excellent recording, Grace Alone. I listen to it frequently. Excellent!

[Mike Harding]

None of the changes you made at Calvary should be problematic.

Thanks for the encouragement :). Blessings to you as well.

I appreciate the support from Mike and others. The purpose of my last post was not to evoke affirmation or sympathy, more to raise the question of, What constitutes Convergence?. If what I did at Calvary should not be “problematic,” then what is the distinction between that and what Frontline is addressing? It’s a sincere question, not meant to be argumentative.

After reading the Frontline issue, I think there is a clear spectrum among the authors. Compare Bro. Unruh’s article with Harding’s in tone, substance and a way forward. Unruh comes across as bitter, upset, angry and trigger-happy with his flamethrower and bandolier of incendiary grenades. His tone reminds me of the old 1930’s gangster movies, where a maniac with a Tommy gun fires indiscriminately while cackling like a lunatic. In fact, every single item I took objection to from the teaser excerpts turned out to be from his article.

My point is that I doubt the authors who contributed to the piece would agree among themselves what a “Convergent” person is. But, in one sense it doesn’t matter - their use of the term betrays the real concern - “some of them are not like us anymore!” (cue appropriate scary music of your choice).

That is the primary weakness of the whole issue - I’m not entirely sure who these articles are meant to (1) address or (2) persuade. As a general rule of thumb, its usually difficult to “lovingly rebuke” somebody after you’ve lit them on fire.

The first time I ever remember hearing about Mike Harding (growing up as someone who was not tightly integrated into the FBF/BJU world) was when David Cloud mentioned him and 1BC Troy as being controversial… hosting an FBF meeting and being a church that wasn’t KJV. So I think that Mike has some idea of what it is like to go against the grain. :)

Churches will be led through changes like Mike and Dean led. Some of them we might disagree with as pastors of other churches. However, I think it is important to realize that particularly as Baptists, local churches must be allowed to make their own autonomous decisions.

Now granted, that does not mean that a church can decide anything they want and not expect pushback. However, we should also recognize that when those differences are not specifically contrary to parameters set and codified, some measure of patience and grace must be extended, at the very least until the matter is discussed and a position is codified within a fellowship or associational setting.
On the other hand, I think it is also important for us to consider what Mike did in the past. I have never talked to Mike in any length about his experiences, but it does seem that he believed enough in the decision to weather the controversy, rather than just walk away when critics reared their heads.

Dean mentioned in his post:

I shared with one ministry friend that I feel more at home at Shepherd’s Conference than I do at an FBF meeting.

Now, having attended both a Shepherd’s Conference AND and an FBFI Annual, I get that. :)
At the same time, there are days where I might feel more relaxed in the receptive environment of the SC than I might in a Deacons’ meeting at my local church. For good or bad, I’m not really at the SC to contribute or collaborate. I’m there to learn, have conversations, get free food, get my shoes shined, and so on. It’s a great experience, and a rich one on many levels. But at least for me, it’s also not an environment where I’m going in to work on collaborative plans with other pastors and churches for missionary support, church planting, some publishing project, and similar things.
Now, the FBFI isn’t a local church body. Neither are settings like the Minnesota Baptist Association or the GARBC. But in those settings, you are either making decisions at some point on collaborative ministries between congregations, or at least making and maintaining relationships where those kinds of decisions are more commonly affected.
I think we need to be careful. Just because a situation is sometimes less relaxing, more demanding, and even sometimes unpleasant doesn’t mean we avoid it. I remember hearing Dever relate once how he was inclined just to avoid investing in the Southern Baptist Convention… all the compromise, the politics, the problems and headaches… who needed it? Albert Mohler encouraged him to think differently about things, and pointed out to him that he was only going to get out of it what he invested into it. Participation brings influence.
Decisions such as Taylor and Harding have made take some measure of wisdom and courage (whether or not you agree with their specific conclusions and decisions). What Harding did in the context of the FBFI, however, has allowed his church’s decision to have influence beyond just one church. Not every church led by an FBFI member pastor has made the same decision. But not every pastor who does will face quite the same level of outrage and resistance when he makes a similar change, either… at least in that context.
So, whatever else we might learn from this, I am appreciative of men who make hard decisions and lead in careful changes. Thank you, gentlemen, for showing the transparency here in this discussion and providing an example for others to consider. And thank you, Mike, for showing us how to gain a measure of influence, even when it means taking criticism from your opponents.

Greg wrote:

Just because a situation is sometimes less relaxing, more demanding, and even sometimes unpleasant doesn’t mean we avoid it. I remember hearing Dever relate once how he was inclined just to avoid investing in the Southern Baptist Convention… all the compromise, the politics, the problems and headaches… who needed it? Albert Mohler encouraged him to think differently about things, and pointed out to him that he was only going to get out of it what he invested into it. Participation brings influence.

Some days I agree with you, and other days I just don’t care. A few reasons:

1. I am not good at being political, and I think some people can be too political in the interest of what, for lack of a better word, I’ll call “coalition-building.”
2. Some of this is due to personality. Some people are more blunt than others. I am blunt. I usually temper it a bit. However, there are some things I have little patience for - because I believe it is too important to be political about. I have a hard time being nice when it comes to the old-line FBFI flavor of fundamentalism. I don’t like it and I think it is destructive. They aren’t shy about expressing their opinions (cue Bro. Dan “Tommy Gun” Unruh and his flamethrower). Must we who are being peppered with .45 cal rounds be sweet and demure in return? I see the hand-holding Justin Taylor and Co. are doing with Andy Stanley. It makes me sick. These men are spineless. They are politicians. They’re protecting their brand. I fear we’re making a mistake if we do the same. Some days I think I’m wrong on this, and others I’m convinced I’m right.
3. Many days, I just don’t care about fundamentalism as a movement. I just want to go to church and teach the Bible and spread the Gospel. I do this with a fundamentalist philosophy and mindset, but it’s not a badge I wear. That’s it. Whether fundamentalism comes or goes, or TGC stands or falls, I really don’t care - and neither do 99.99999997% of the folks in the pews. This is a Pastoral and networking thing. It’s not something a normal Christian spends his time worrying about. So, to some extent, I just don’t care about the movement.
4. On other other hand, I think good fundamentalist seminaries (e.g. Faith, Central, Detroit, Maranatha) are producing the best educated and best-prepared people out there. The. Best. No. Comparison. There is a young man in my church who is a recent MDiv graduate of Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon. A good man, but he’s an Evangelical jellyfish. No comparison. Fundamentalist seminaries are training and producing the best Christian Pastors and thinkers in the United States today. There is no question. For this reason, fundamentalism must go on. It must.

So, bottom line - I’m not sure what I think about fundamentalism. It depends on the day. I am conflicted most of the time. I vowed four days ago to never comment on fundamentalism again. I obviously failed.

Help me understand why I should care, Greg.

There is a young man in my church who is a recent MDiv graduate of Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon. A good man, but he’s an Evangelical jellyfish. No comparison. Fundamentalist seminaries are training and producing the best Christian Pastors and thinkers in the United States today.

You’re making your own argument better than I could. :)
Your church, whether the one you are in or one you might pastor in the future, will be looking for or examining others to support and collaborate with… whether missions home or abroad, chaplains to endorse, professors from which people might learn, etc etc. Whatever you want to call it… movements, associations, fellowships, what have you… you have to at some point branch out beyond your local assembly to one degree or another.
You can either let others do the work while you reap the benefits (or lack thereof), or you can invest in shaping and maintaining the parameters of that particular context in which you collaborate… whatever that context might be.
That’s all I have time for right now. I’m sure this won’t be the last word, though. :D

Thanks to guys like Harding and Taylor (& many others) for making much needed changes. They have certainly encouraged me to stay ‘in the fold’ as it were.

Dear All,

I am in the middle of an online MA (BJU) and wanting to then do an M.Div.

To my knowledge, there is no fully online M.Div. yet available at a fundamental seminary.

Could anyone give me some recommendations on seminaries I should consider for further online studies?

Maranatha has a fully virtual MDiv. I have been plodding away at it for five years. I’ve been on campus once. They’re also the best fundamentalist Seminary! Message me for more info. I’ve been taking Greek with a student from the Middle East for three years. It is fully virtual.

Robert,

I would recommend moving to a town that has a seminary in which you are interested in attending. Virtual education is not bad, but face-to-face education is better. I’ll throw in a plug for Central. The library, plus access to libraries in the area (Luther, Bethel, St. John, U of MN) is one of the best. The faculty is solid, and some of the best thinkers and educators in fundamentalism. You will learn far more from sitting in class, and then debating outside of class with your classmates than you would by doing assignments online (I’ve done some online education in non-theological areas).

…per Tyler’s comment about a lot of good people coming out of Detroit, Faith, and the like would be a head to head comparison of the good fundamental schools’ products with those of the good evangelical schools like SBTS, Cedarville, TEDS, and Dallas (or others that might be better, I’m just an engineer). Like Tyler, I’ve been impressed with the doctrinal steadiness of many of the fundamental schools, but a lot of fundamentalist “antics” in social issues and such are just depressing.

Not that bomb-throwing, personal attacks, and guilt by association are unique to “us”, but honestly, can’t we do better than this?