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

[Philip Golden Jr.] the very basic tenants of the Christian faith

Sigh. I hate this! You’ve pushed my button.

TENETS!!!!!

TENETS!!!!!

TENETS!!!!!

TENETS!!!!!

TENETS!!!!!

TENETS!!!!!

We aren’t renting the Christian faith out to anyone.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

We aren’t renting the Christian faith out to anyone.

‘We’ aren’t responsible to rent the Christian faith out to anyone.

It’s becoming pretty obvious that the big issue between the FBFI and the ‘Convergents’ / ‘young fundamentalists’ is that some in the FBFI seems to think they have a lot more control and power over people than they actually do (or even should).

"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

[Jim]

Fundamentalists arguing is like …

What they fight over …

“I’m the real Historic Fundamentalist”

No you’re notI’m the real Historic Fundamentalist”

“No you’re not … I’m the real Historic Fundamentalist”

Ad nauseam

I wrote this above:

I believe many in the younger generation of Baptist fundamentalists do not see being “B”aptist as the definitional area of their systematic theology. Instead, for many of them, the definitional area is being “R”eformed in their soteriology and theology proper. They implement the doctrine of separation accordingly. Some Baptist fundamentalists seem to take exception to this.

Of course, not all younger fundamentalists are Reformed, but you get my point. What think ye, my brethren?

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

I’ll try and help Unruh out. “Covergent”, more or less, means those who say they’re fundamental, but reject portions of FBFI resolutions on what constitutes Biblical separation. Per comments above, that indicates that one ought to separate from those who use music disapproved by the FBFI, those who read John 2:1-11 in its ordinary sense (per ordinary dispensational hermeneutic), and also from those who do not separate from things like open theism—though I’m not sure that this is a big issue anymore, even within “Converge”, the old BGC. (Steve?)

Sound close to right? And yes, Unruh is correct that many churches are examining these assumptions, some openly (e.g. Piper), some quietly. The question, IMO, is whether a pastor who chooses to do this quietly qualifies as an “Absalom”, a usurper of what ought to be. And the first thing that needs to be repeated with that is that Absalom would never have gotten to the place he did if his father had not slept with Bathsheba and killed Uriah, breaking the covenant of trust with his people.

That fact should, ahem, temper anyone’s enthusiasm for calling our opponents “Absaloms”, don’t you think? It implicitly associates the accuser of grievous sins like those of David—really it’s like the old proverb that when you point one finger at another person, you’ve got four pointing at yourself.

So let us back away from Unruh’s rather counter-productive ad hominem and instead ask ourselves the question “are there pastors who sneakily come in and nudge churches away from FBFI positions?”. It would be silly to argue otherwise. Certainly there are. And why do churches fall for this?

It’s because the church isn’t capable of seeing the change in theology, or because the church quite frankly views the old theology as somewhat repugnant. Whether it’s music, wine, open theology, or whatever, the church is only going to go the direction of the “new guy” because the “old guy” didn’t make a compelling case for “how things used to be.” And it’s worth noting that in my experience, it wasn’t a duplicitous “Absalom” that nudged me away from some of the positions some of my friends held. It was rather the clear testimony of the Scriptures and the often nasty nature of the arguments for those positions.

Word to the wise, no?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

@Don- sorry for my lax spelling. I have never been too good with spelling and have become too dependent on Spell Check, which doesn’t flag “tenants” because, well, its correctly spelled, just the wrong word!

On the broader question that Tyler addressed, I agree that many (maybe even most) younger fundamentalists have embraced a moderate Reformed soteriology. Tyler is on to something when he pointed out above that “the fundamental linchpin” is “…which part of your systematic theology is most definitional to you, and how does this impact your doctrine of separation?” So, yes, I think that we have a seen that kind of shift among younger Fundamentalists who are less about being “BIG B” Baptists and more concerned with fidelity to the “Doctrines of Grace.” Younger fundamentalists are more defined by reformed theology. But, is that or should that be what impacts their doctrine of separation?

I don’t personally view someone with variance on the doctrines of grace as someone I would need to Ecclesiastically separate from. From a doctrinal standpoint, I don’t think separation should be impacted by my theological system. This was, I believe, the focus of “historic” fundamentalism and why The Fundamentals were published. To define the Basic Tenets of Fundamentalism and, for that matter, the basic tenets of the Christian Faith.

What I believe has happened in fundamentalism proper that has discouraged “younger fundamentalists” is the elevation of other matters to become distinctive tenets of Fundamentalism. They range from theological matters (such as Dispensationalism) to cultural matters (music, dress, etc) to practical issues (particularly determining to separate from someone because they do not apply separation just like you would).

So what I think would be helpful is a serious rethinking of where fundamentalism stands on these issues. This is the reason I asked why dispensational theology is a defining characteristic of the FBFI. We need to ask why something has become a distinctive tenet of fundamentalism, and if the explanation is found wanting from a biblical perspective, then we need to really rethink if that tenet should be distinctive of fundamentalism.

Hopefully I spelled “tenets” correctly throughout. :)

Phil Golden

[Jay]

We aren’t renting the Christian faith out to anyone.

‘We’ aren’t responsible to rent the Christian faith out to anyone.

It’s becoming pretty obvious that the big issue between the FBFI and the ‘Convergents’ / ‘young fundamentalists’ is that some in the FBFI seems to think they have a lot more control and power over people than they actually do (or even should).

Jay, you appear not to understand. Look at my post again. Consult a dictionary. The light will turn on.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I believe Bro. Golden is a master of succinct and weighty statements. If you’re drafting a statement of faith, call Bro. Golden to accurately compact difficult issues into a single paragraph! He wrote:

What I believe has happened in fundamentalism proper that has discouraged “younger fundamentalists” is the elevation of other matters to become distinctive tenets of Fundamentalism. They range from theological matters (such as Dispensationalism) to cultural matters (music, dress, etc) to practical issues (particularly determining to separate from someone because they do not apply separation just like you would).

This is spot on. Rather than recognize that fundamentalism has historically been a “big-tent” philosophy to ministry based on militant fidelity to the Scriptures and it’s implications for everyday life, some flavors of fundamentalism have drawn the circle ever tighter (based primarily on shared Baptist ecclesiology and premillennial eschatology), and criticize those whose circle isn’t the same as their own. I believe this is a mistake.

There is plenty of inconsistency in Baptist fundamentalism, but it is generally tolerated. See, for example, what I wrote earlier about the recent Gospel Proclaimed conference:

This is a very healthy example of the doctrine of ecclesiology as the most definitional area of systematic theology. Represented at this meeting are men who are Arminian and Calvinistic, Textus Receptus and Eclectic Text, Chaferian sanctification and Reformed sanctification, who have different views on something as fundamental as the New Covenant and the church, and probably on also the work of the Holy Spirit in the OT, etc. In other words, they’re together on “Baptist,” but agree to disagree on a whole host of other issues. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. But, perhaps some Baptist fundamentalists should realize this:

Men do exist who simply have a different definitional area of systematic theology which informs their doctrine of separation. This doesn’t mean they’re not fundamentalists. It just means they’re fundamentalists who are a bit different than you.

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

[Philip Golden Jr.]

@Don- sorry for my lax spelling. I have never been too good with spelling and have become too dependent on Spell Check, which doesn’t flag “tenants” because, well, its correctly spelled, just the wrong word!

ah, you’ve put my mind at ease!

actually, technically it’s called a malapropism, not a misspelling. The term comes from a play by Edmond Spenser called The Rivals, something I had to read on high school. Of all the malaprops that bug me, “tenants” for “tenet” is the worst.

as for your post, lots of good thoughts there, I will get back to you shortly, now that we have the weightiest matter settled!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

The FBFI seems to be a fellowship of dispensational IFB’s to whom music and certain cultural matters (alcohol, dancing, movies, pop music) are seen as major issues and whose membership, while voiceless, is assumed to be in accord with the statements of its self-perpetuating leadership. That’s fine and what they want.

Convergents, while united on Biblical truth and its defense, are not drawn to that particular brand of narrowness.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

[Don Johnson]

Jay, you appear not to understand. Look at my post again. Consult a dictionary. The light will turn on.

Ah, I see what you were saying now. Thanks.

"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

[Ron Bean]

… cultural matters (alcohol, dancing, movies, pop music …

… Convergents, while united on Biblical truth and its defense, are not drawn to that particular brand of narrowness.

FBFI and Convergents aside, your allusion to alcohol, dancing, movies, pop music, etc. raises an important question. Are these topics altogether irrelevant? An older generation of fundamentalists expresses concerns over trending views on ‘cultural’ topics like this. John MacArthur (one example who is not an FBFI member) has a lot to say about these things, for instance. As a fundamentalist who is younger (34 yrs.), I do not consider myself a ‘young fundamentalist.’ Nor do I consider myself a guardian of a historical movement or group of one kind or another. But I am a Bible-believing Christian who believes the fundamentals of the faith. The issues you have mentioned are not fundamentals of the faith, but they are important.

Here’s what I’ve noticed, if I’m correct, which is not always the case :) Fundamental believers in the younger spectrum tend towards a Chuck Swindoll Grace Awakening sort of view towards anything that is not a fundamental doctrine, which I consider aberrant. (Then we often include Reformed convictions as a near-fundamental of our essential beliefs.) We live by the letter of the law of grace, and do not give serious attention to matters of worldliness, application and the heart which may admittedly be subjective. We struggle with giving priority to what is best and prefer to swear allegiance to anything that does not have a law against it. Perhaps we should challenge our own thinking in a different way. Just because there isn’t a law against certain behavior, does that mean God is unconcerned? I consider, for instance, the impassioned plea against alcohol drinking by John Mac Arthur here. Perhaps you don’t align with his perspective, but his concerns should be considered carefully nonetheless. And many other older men share this view. I am listening.

Conversely, men in the older spectrum tend towards an overly-dogmatic approach, against which men like Swindoll reacted. Perhaps they have forced a rigid separation over subjective areas, stating these topics as clear and apparent, when in fact they require more careful, thoughtful explanations. But perhaps these concerns also rise out of an understanding of God in a personal way, to which we should still pay attention.

Regardless of any past experience, hurts, bitterness or frustration we may have faced in our communication of the Christian life across generations, we must wisely continue to listen. There is wisdom in listening carefully to an older generation. They may have flaws, but we do too. And just because an older man argues that certain music is worldly and inappropriate for church worship, but employs unconvincing arguments, doesn’t mean that his conclusions are wrong and worthless. At the very least, there is wisdom to considering the concern, if for no other reason than he is older than me.

I appreciate men like Kevin Bauder who challenge us to pursue what is best in thought and in life, whether in music or otherwise. Not all older fundamentalists are able to do this in the same way, but we still need to listen. Someday another generation will be listening to us and pointing out our failures. Perhaps we will look back and realize that we should have listened more carefully, reflectively and prayerfully. Perhaps our children will ask us why were were not more careful. Or perhaps we’ll ask this question of ourselves.

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

I guess I’m an old (69) convergent but my experience with convergents is that they do not see those cultural issues I listed as irrelevant. I know many who are abstainers and conservative in their music and tastes in art. And I don’t know any who pay attention to Swindoll or Dobson, etc.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

[Ron Bean]

I guess I’m an old (69) convergent

And I’m guessing I’m a young non-convergent. Is there such thing as an old convergent and a young non-convergent? Apparently so :)

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