The Great Evangelical Mea Culpa

Feel free to interrupt the conversation at any time! :)

Greg:

You pose a good question and I suppose there is no set answer for every scenario. Yes, I remember the ACCC meeting in Parma, OH in 2005 and that we conversed, but I admit to not remembering the subjects discussed. As to whether the ACCC was an academic gathering or a platform situation, one might say it seemed to have some elements of both. Personally I considered it a time of preaching and fellowship around common convictions, goals and efforts. I was there largely, if not solely, because I had written Promise Unfulfilled. I know the ACCC is interdenominational, as fundamentalism has been and generally still is. And I know such structuring carries its own limitations. But since liberalism and new evangelicalism afflicted the churches across denominational lines, the battle inevitably had to be fought accordingly. In any such arrangement error of some sort can always be found and will need be accommodated in terms of the project or endeavor. But where the point is reached where error is deemed intolerable, or even heretical, is where fellowship, platform or otherwise, ends.

But generally I think the difference between an academic or scholastic gathering and a fellowship, evangelistic or spiritual enrichment conclave is fairly easy to detect. The subject matter, type of attendees anticipated, invited and drawn, the history of how the group has operated in previous years, any noticeable changes in how, who and why the headliners were invited and the like should be thought through.

For some these rubrics might turn encyclopedic and thus unworkable and useless. Fellowship and separation issues in the end are personal, i.e., must be perceived and addressed by the person and his conscience. One must respect that even if that conscience is wrong (Rom 14:14, 23).

Personally, if the options to the questions seem evenly divided as to whether to participate or get involved in a proposal, I would decline.

I respect you and your answer.
I do think that in the past, the separatists were right. I even think they were right enough where I see no reason to leave where I am and attempt to continue the efforts they began and continued to maintain.

Where I see a difference today is when it comes to encouraging and associating with those who have realized the errors within the circles they were raised in, and who have attempted and are succeeding in purifying from within. Whether we are talking about some of the friends I am forming a relationship with among the S’gaw Karen believers of Burma/Myanmar, or those behind the conservative resurgence in the SBC, I think there is room to recognize a degree of commonality where we can, and at the very least realize we are working towards the same goal, even if some are Pilgrims and other Puritans (in a manner or speaking).

In the landscape of today, we have many common enemies, and there are Evangelicals who are indisputably on the front lines of those fights. At this stage of the game, Fundamentalists are not “fighting for furniture” like some did in the past. In many cases, we are struggling to maintain the furniture (and sadly often not succeeding). I don’t think the answer is to give it to the other side… but Fundamentalists have enough practical matters to give their attention to without having to lob grenades at people who simply aren’t “us.”
I know enough to recognize that there are plenty of men who value the same truth I do that can help me and the people I minister to with the resources they have produced (books, hymns, articles, and so on). In some cases, they are recognizing the same about things Fundamentalists produce. I know for a fact that the people at Grace Community/The Master’s Seminary speak highly of the DBTS Journal- I have heard those comments firsthand. The hymns of Chris Anderson are sung by many more than just self-identified Fundamentalists. Kevin Bauder’s In the Nick of Time has a wide audience, too. I know people appreciate volumes like Promise Unfulfilled and Bauder’s book on Baptist Distinctives. There may be others to mention, but they are escaping my mind at the moment.
I do think too many of “our guys” are leaving for greener pastures without considering how they might stay and revitalize struggling churches. But at the same time, there are plenty who are staying, and in many cases making great personal sacrifice to labor in pastoral ministry. I am privileged to labor alongside many such men here in Minnesota.
The principles remain the same… but the applications aren’t always as clear, especially when it seems there is as much or more to avoid “to the right,” as it were, than there is on “the left.” Those being accused of “Convergence” are often struggling to keep out of both ditches and stay the course.

[Greg Linscott]

In the landscape of today, we have many common enemies, and there are Evangelicals who are indisputably on the front lines of those fights. At this stage of the game, Fundamentalists are not “fighting for furniture” like some did in the past. In many cases, we are struggling to maintain the furniture (and sadly often not succeeding). I don’t think the answer is to give it to the other side… but Fundamentalists have enough practical matters to give their attention to without having to lob grenades at people who simply aren’t “us.”

Greg, I think you are mischaracterizing the criticism. The criticism of convergence is not directed at the evangelicals, but at the erstwhile fundamentalists who are watering down the fundamentalist message or distorting it completely. The Northland fiasco is a prime example, but this has been happening in many churches as well.

To say we are lobbing grenades at people who “aren’t ‘us’ ” is simply false.

[Greg Linscott]

I do think too many of “our guys” are leaving for greener pastures without considering how they might stay and revitalize struggling churches. But at the same time, there are plenty who are staying, and in many cases making great personal sacrifice to labor in pastoral ministry. I am privileged to labor alongside many such men here in Minnesota.

Yes, this is what the debate is about. We need fundamentalists who will be active, energetic, and fearless.

We need fundamentalists who will be active, energetic, and fearless.

…and that can be done while singing Getty hymns. :D

I appreciate Dr. McCune’s input here. His wisdom, balance, and experience are helpful.

His reference about those who were seriously looking into fundamentalism piqued my interest. I am getting the impression that most of us realize that the CE’s have a lot in common with fundamentalists (separation from apostasy, defenders of the Gospel, etc.). On the other hand neither they nor the “convergents” seem to be interested in identifying with the type of fundamentalism of the “tommy gun” variety.

I know that words like “unity”, “balance”, and “co-operation” are sometimes interpreted as “compromise” by extreme fundamentalists but I think we need to realize that we can enjoy the fellowship of brethren who think and act like we do but don’t want to be called fundamentalists.

In other words, I fear the FBFI is basically defining “fundamentalism” in it’s own image and denying the label to those who are not in lockstep with it. Cue Bro. “Tommy Gun (link is external)” Unruh.

Hey Tyler -

Agreed with almost everything that you said in your earlier post, but I think that it’s time to lay off of Bro. Unruh. I haven’t read his article, but from what it sounds like, he needs compassion and help from other fellow-believers, not more criticism. Friendly fire cuts both ways, you know, and Galatians 6:1 is still in the Bible.

I do, however, think it’s completely fair to critize the FBFI for using his story as a cudgel against us ‘convergents’ in ​Frontline​, however. We’re only getting Unruh’s side of the story, and there’s Biblical warrant for hearing both sides (cf. Prov. 18:17).

Did you at least like the picture!?

Seriously, though, Gal 6:1 is speaking about unpremeditated sin. I think Bro. Unruh’s article is deliberately sinful, not least because he directly compared Jason Janz to Ansalom, among many other things.

Never been much of a Jim Carrey fan…sorry!

I’ll defer to you on what Unruh wrote, because you have read his article and I haven’t. I do think, however, that we can behave better than our erring brothers are. Unruh’s article is just a weapon for the FBFI to use against our deceptive and dangerous ‘convergent’ brethren. They attack us with name-calling and slander - let’s respond with Christ’s love and peace (cf Matthew 5:38-42, Romans 12:21). If the FBFI wants to gossip and call names, let them. Christ will hold them to account for their sins. We can and should be better than that.
In any case, I don’t think that calling Unruh names is:

1. productive or
2. going to deal with the substance of the Convergence issue.

Let’s keep our focus on the real issue - the FBFI’s attack on ‘convergents’. That’s the real issue here.

For myself, my big filter would be “Reformed.”

If that is the case, why are you schooling at MBU and not RTS or PRS?
Are you Reformed (paedo-, CT), or a Calvinist(ic, Dispensational) Baptist? :D
I’m just wondering how “big” your filter is.

…no matter what other differences you might have, the reality is that this should overrule everything else:

We’re in the same church. We’ll make it work.

In the end, that’s the only relationship that matters in the context of what we’re discussing.