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

Thomas-

I don’t think anyone is trying to diminish the importance of settled convictions on cultural matters. They are important. I personally don’t drink. The church I pastor is committed to traditional worship. We even still use the KJV.

I think the concern is whether or not that is what defines fundamentalism. While I have settled convictions about these things, I am also not going to point the finger at someone whose convictions are different and say that they are not really fundamental. That, I think, is the issue.

I, personally, don’t think that cultural standards should be a distinctive tenet of fundamentalism. Fundamentalists should be able to fellowship whether or not one drinks a cup of wine with dinner or not, whether one has a drum set on stage or not, whether or not one wears a suit and tie or not. In my humble opinion, that’s not what fundamentalism was about not is it what it should be about. But it seems, in some circles, that is exactly what it has become.

As an aide to the conversation, I may have missed this in other discussions or threads, but did anyone mention the irony that in the latest Frontline, Bob Jones has two adds (one for the Seminary conference and one for Bible Conference) that feature Ken Ham? I laughed when I saw the cover and read some of the articles then saw those adds.

[Philip Golden Jr.]

Fundamentalists should be able to fellowship whether or not one drinks a cup of wine with dinner or not, whether one has a drum set on stage or not, whether or not one wears a suit and tie or not.

This raises the helpful, extended discussion that Kevin Bauder raised a few years ago, if my vague time reference is accurate. We easily view Christian fellowship as “all or nothing.” (I say this as a general observation, but not as a charge against any person in particular.) Older men generally lean towards nothing and younger men generally lean towards all. This is very understandable. Instead, we need to carefully consider with whom we may fellowship, and to what extent. Older men generally lean towards expecting large, associational agreement on everything, while younger men generally lean towards large, loose agreement on essentials only. But there’s a vast spectrum in between, and we need to respect this reality.

My baptist polity, so far as I learn from Scripture, affects my posture in this regard. Some will call this conviction individual soul liberty. Not only am I responsible as an individual (not a group) to develop settled convictions about these things, but I am responsible to express my views, strongly and with heart. At the same time I should be able to do so without condemning as heretics those who disagree. For instance, the church I shepherd does not use drums in worship. Can I have dinner with a fellow pastor who pastors a church differently on this point? Yes. Will I preach at his church, or visa versa? Will our youth groups participate in joint activities? I must make these choices with a clear conscience, and so must we all. Sometimes my decision will be yes, and other times my decision will be no. You may decide differently. But for a thoughtful Christian, the answer will likely not be always yes or always no. May God enable us all to do this better, and to be gracious in spirit towards those who differ. And we need to continue to listen to one another with this same grace also.

Bro. Overmiller wrote:

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?

If this is what the FBFI is worried about, then I am worried, too. I haven’t met these younger fundamentalists, but that doesn’t necessarily mean much. Most of the younger fundamentalists I know are attracted to Reformed theology and John MacArthur, R.C. Sproul, Ligon Duncan, et al.

Ok, now I have a moment so I’d like to comment on a few things you said instead of messing around with malaprops!

[Philip Golden Jr.]

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?

This is an important observation. Cornelius van Til didn’t want to be known as a Fundamentalist partly because he felt the fundamentalists were concerned with the wrong things. For him the whole gamut of Reformed theology was the criteria. While the Convergent mindset (as I see it) wouldn’t go as far as van Til, it does seem that for them soteriological hair splitting is more important than ecclesiological hair splitting. I recently reviewed a book by Dr. Larry Oats on P&D (the review may be slated to appear hear later, I’m not sure), The Church of the Fundamentalists. Dr. Oats contends that the theological issue that drives fundamentalism as opposed to other movements is ecclesiology, or “what is the church?” The Baptists fought for religious freedom, some of them suffering grievously for their views. Those who are “less about being ‘BIG B’ Baptists” likely don’t know or don’t value the history and the reasons for the history.

[Philip Golden Jr.]

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.

There are within the FBFI (as an example) men who are more and men who are less Calvinistic. It isn’t an issue of separation with us. Where the division occurs is when someone elevates the so-called doctrines of grace to the level of “the Gospel.” The idea that contending for an interpretive issue like Reformed soteriology is more important than contending for a pure church is the difference. So I guess I am agreeing with you and disagreeing with you. Yes, the fine points of soteriology should not be the issue, but separation IS impacted by our theological systems, among other things. If not theological systems, then what? Mere party politics?

[Philip Golden Jr.]

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.

I think that if you examine the history, dispensationalism in large measure created fundamentalism. It certainly arrived on the scene before fundamentalism did. So I don’t think that an emphasis on dispensationalism has discouraged the convergents, rather they have come to an anti-dispensational or non-dispensational position which automatically tends to react against a movement that is largely characterized by it.

I would also suggest that as Reformed theology has increased in popularity, it isn’t just Reformed soteriology that is on the upswing, it is the Reformed approach to culture that is being embraced. Instead of confronting culture, the attitude is more focused on transforming culture. These ideas are not compatible, so conflict is inevitable.

Why is dispensationalism a defining characteristic of the FBFI? Because we are dispensationalists. It is part of our doctrinal statement. It is who we are. I wouldn’t say that it is a distinctive tenet of broader fundamentalism, but many non-FBFI fundamentalists (perhaps most) are also dispensationalists. But I think that this somewhat goes with the tension between Reformed theology and fundamentalism. We all want to claim Machen, for example, but it is doubtful that Machen would want to claim us. It is more that there are points at which militant Reformists (to coin a term) and fundamentalists can be cobelligerents rather than allies.

[Don Johnson]

Ok, now I have a moment so I’d like to comment on a few things you said instead of messing around with malaprops!

Philip Golden Jr. wrote:

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?

This is an important observation. Cornelius van Til didn’t want to be known as a Fundamentalist partly because he felt the fundamentalists were concerned with the wrong things. For him the whole gamut of Reformed theology was the criteria. While the Convergent mindset (as I see it) wouldn’t go as far as van Til, it does seem that for them soteriological hair splitting is more important than ecclesiological hair splitting. I recently reviewed a book by Dr. Larry Oats on P&D (the review may be slated to appear hear later, I’m not sure), The Church of the Fundamentalists. Dr. Oats contends that the theological issue that drives fundamentalism as opposed to other movements is ecclesiology, or “what is the church?” The Baptists fought for religious freedom, some of them suffering grievously for their views. Those who are “less about being ‘BIG B’ Baptists” likely don’t know or don’t value the history and the reasons for the history.

Philip Golden Jr. wrote:

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.

There are within the FBFI (as an example) men who are more and men who are less Calvinistic. It isn’t an issue of separation with us. Where the division occurs is when someone elevates the so-called doctrines of grace to the level of “the Gospel.” The idea that contending for an interpretive issue like Reformed soteriology is more important than contending for a pure church is the difference. So I guess I am agreeing with you and disagreeing with you. Yes, the fine points of soteriology should not be the issue, but separation IS impacted by our theological systems, among other things. If not theological systems, then what? Mere party politics?

Philip Golden Jr. 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).

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.

I think that if you examine the history, dispensationalism in large measure created fundamentalism. It certainly arrived on the scene before fundamentalism did. So I don’t think that an emphasis on dispensationalism has discouraged the convergents, rather they have come to an anti-dispensational or non-dispensational position which automatically tends to react against a movement that is largely characterized by it.

I would also suggest that as Reformed theology has increased in popularity, it isn’t just Reformed soteriology that is on the upswing, it is the Reformed approach to culture that is being embraced. Instead of confronting culture, the attitude is more focused on transforming culture. These ideas are not compatible, so conflict is inevitable.

Why is dispensationalism a defining characteristic of the FBFI? Because we are dispensationalists. It is part of our doctrinal statement. It is who we are. I wouldn’t say that it is a distinctive tenet of broader fundamentalism, but many non-FBFI fundamentalists (perhaps most) are also dispensationalists. But I think that this somewhat goes with the tension between Reformed theology and fundamentalism. We all want to claim Machen, for example, but it is doubtful that Machen would want to claim us. It is more that there are points at which militant Reformists (to coin a term) and fundamentalists can be cobelligerents rather than allies.

[Andrew K]

I would also suggest that as Reformed theology has increased in popularity, it isn’t just Reformed soteriology that is on the upswing, it is the Reformed approach to culture that is being embraced. Instead of confronting culture, the attitude is more focused on transforming culture. These ideas are not compatible, so conflict is inevitable.

Why is dispensationalism a defining characteristic of the FBFI? Because we are dispensationalists. It is part of our doctrinal statement. It is who we are. I wouldn’t say that it is a distinctive tenet of broader fundamentalism, but many non-FBFI fundamentalists (perhaps most) are also dispensationalists. But I think that this somewhat goes with the tension between Reformed theology and fundamentalism. We all want to claim Machen, for example, but it is doubtful that Machen would want to claim us. It is more that there are points at which militant Reformists (to coin a term) and fundamentalists can be cobelligerents rather than allies.

Correction: That is one model of the Reformed approach to culture known as “neocalvinism” and/or “transformationalism.” It’s hardly the only model, isn’t the traditional model, may not even be the majority model, and certainly isn’t my model. I lean more toward Two Kingdoms-ish myself (or the historic Baptist equivalent). We be a pilgrim folk.

Sure, correction noted, but perhaps you could expand on that. What do you mean by Two Kingdoms? Would you say that the neocalvinist approach is characteristic of what I am calling “the convergents” or is that merely a subset of some?

[Don Johnson]

Andrew K wrote:

I would also suggest that as Reformed theology has increased in popularity, it isn’t just Reformed soteriology that is on the upswing, it is the Reformed approach to culture that is being embraced. Instead of confronting culture, the attitude is more focused on transforming culture. These ideas are not compatible, so conflict is inevitable.

Why is dispensationalism a defining characteristic of the FBFI? Because we are dispensationalists. It is part of our doctrinal statement. It is who we are. I wouldn’t say that it is a distinctive tenet of broader fundamentalism, but many non-FBFI fundamentalists (perhaps most) are also dispensationalists. But I think that this somewhat goes with the tension between Reformed theology and fundamentalism. We all want to claim Machen, for example, but it is doubtful that Machen would want to claim us. It is more that there are points at which militant Reformists (to coin a term) and fundamentalists can be cobelligerents rather than allies.

Correction: That is one model of the Reformed approach to culture known as “neocalvinism” and/or “transformationalism.” It’s hardly the only model, isn’t the traditional model, may not even be the majority model, and certainly isn’t my model. I lean more toward Two Kingdoms-ish myself (or the historic Baptist equivalent). We be a pilgrim folk.

Sure, correction noted, but perhaps you could expand on that. What do you mean by Two Kingdoms? Would you say that the neocalvinist approach is characteristic of what I am calling “the convergents” or is that merely a subset of some?

Good to know what you mean by Two Kingdoms. I’ve seen the term around, but not had a working definition in my head. Too busy to study up on it, I guess.

While most of the convergents tend toward Calvinism and while it appears that the FBFI tolerates an anti-Calvinistic attitude as evidenced by Danny Sweatt’s sermon of a few years ago ( http://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=56091910360), I don’t think that the alleged lure of Calvinism or Reformed Theology is the explanation for the migration of “convergents” from the FBFI.

I appreciate Tom’s thought, and though I differ emphatically with many on many of them, I know they’re important—to get right and in a way where we see things Biblically instead of culturally, and using a consistent, tenable, hermeneutic to do so. That’s part of why I take part in these threads.

If the FBFI is really concerned about the exit of convergents from its fellowship, may I suggest that they do some exit interviews with them. I’ve always found it more beneficial to talk “to” people rather than “about” them. In the PC (pre convergent) days I was one of those who left the then FBF. I wrote a letter, explaining my concerns, and never got a response.

It might be better to classify much of today’s reformed thinking into two camps.

1. Neo Calvinists–those who embrace reformed theology and have a more transformational view on culture, emphasizing God’s sovereignty over all creation. The influence of Abraham Kuyper cannot be overlooked. His quote, “There is not a square inch in the whole domain of our human existence over which Christ, who is Sovereign over all, does not cry, Mine!” is their rallying cry. Tim Keller leans towards this view (although he seems to equally advocate the two-kingdom view in one of his books) as does the Christian Hip-Hop artist, Lecrae. I’ve heard Lecrae lecture on a couple different occasions and he often speaks of transforming Hip-Hop culture (He quotes Kuyper, Dooyweerd, and Wolters)

2. New Calvinists-these reformed folks emphasize God’s sovereignty in salvation. And most of them would adhere more to the two-kingdom view of culture, rather than the transformational view. Piper is one of the people who birthed this movement. Here is a summary of how Piper describes New Calvinists. http://reformedforum.org/john-pipers-twelve-features-new-calvinism/ Hope this helps…..

^I might add the influence of Mike Horton, David Van Drunen, the White Horse Inn, and the whole Westminster California crew (and maybe some of Westminster in Philly? Carl Trueman calls himself an “ordinary means of grace-er,” but that position seems closer to 2k than to transformationalism) to #2. But that seems to be accurate to me. I didn’t know where Piper would fall on these issues, so that’s helpful to know.

Thanks for your kind and clear response Don! It is appreciated. In response to your response (as is the nature of forums :) )

You contrast the Baptist Fundamentalist concern of a pure Eccliesology with the Reformed Fundamentalist concern of a pure Soteriology. I think this is a bit of an oversimplification. I would argue that Reformed Fundamentalists are ardently concerned with a pure Eccliesology, but that the first place they start with keeping the church pure is in its Soteriology. They key to a pure church is a right view of salvation. However, my point is that I think that approaching the subject from either emphasis (Eccliesology or Soteriology) gets us to the same relative place. The things that are of concern to Reformed conservative Evangelicals are, in a large part, the same as the things of concern to Fundamentalists (Doctrinal allegiance to the fundamentals, disdain for theological liberalism, separate from false teachers, denial of Ecumenism and Cooperative Evangelism, etc). These common causes are the driving force between convergence. How we got there is of less importance.

I think “big tent” fundamentalism recognizes that there will be nuanced expression of separation due to one’s theological system from a practical standpoint. But in the “big tent,” those nuances are not the focus. What is held in common is. It is not “mere party politics” that drive separation in the big tent. It is the common cause of the defense of the Christian faith that does. I don’t think that most Reformed convergents who desire to stay in the fundamental movement would say that the defense of Reformed soteriology is more important than a pure church. I can only speak for myself here. I am ardently Calvinistic! However, if a Calvinist embraces something that harms the pure church (say cooperative evangelism), then I would find myself separating from that individual. I think you see that kind of thinking in MacArthur and with His Strange Fire conference. While much of modern Reformed thinking is non-cessationist, MacArthur did not give them a pass because they were Calvinists. He called them out for harming the purity of the church.

Finally, your contention that “dispensationalism in large measure created fundamentalism” would doubtless be challenged by those in the Free Presbyterian Church or the Bible Presbyterian Church, those from Westminster or Machen himself. Now, it may be more true that Dispensationalism created a particular flavor of Fundamentalism, but many of the fiercest battles of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy were fought among Presbyterians.

A final question to consider: Is the FBFI willing to lose fellowship with many younger fundamentalists over the issue of Dispensationalism? I think that is a question that seriously needs to be considered by the leadership. When I look at the FBFI Mission, Vision, and Core Values, I say AMEN! When I hear that there is no room for allegiance with a separatist Baptist who is Post-Trib, I am, to say it lightly, less enthusiastic.

You close by saying that “militant Reformists (to coin a term) and fundamentalists can be cobelligerents rather than allies.” This is exactly what is driving younger fundamentalists away. This is precisely what convergents bemoan about the current state of Fundamentalism. We want to view and accept “militant Reformists” as allies. It seems, at least to me, that you are saying that is not possible. And that is exactly why younger fundamentalists are leaving the movement.