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

[Philip Golden Jr.]

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.

Well, I don’t speak for the FBFI as a whole, but our doctrinal statement is dispensationalist. I don’t see how it would work to cooperate with a non-Dispensationalist in an FBFI setting. Could members of the FBFI attend or participate in a broader meeting, such as perhaps the ACCC? Sure. But we as a group are dispensationalists.

[Philip Golden Jr.]

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.

I think this sentiment misreads the history. The Presbyterians and the Baptists were not cooperating in their fights with modernism. They were fighting their own battles. They may have known each other and encouraged each other on occasion, but their paths did not cross that much. They could cooperate in an endeavor like The Fundamentals, but there was little in common in their church fellowships. I don’t see any reason for that to emerge in the future. Why would we, say, get involved in a fight in the PCA or the Bible Presbyterians? We aren’t part of them. I doubt they would appreciate the interference.

This sentiment is more along the lines, however, not of fighting against modernism but cooperating with such things as Together for the Gospel or The Gospel Coalition. Well, that isn’t going to happen. Those groups have multitudes of problems that affect the fundamentals in profound ways. Not the least is the ongoing revelation of the charismatics. MacArthur can take a strong stand against it as a concept (and he does) but he won’t break with Piper and Mahaney who promote it. There are serious errors in the theology of Tim Keller and others in TGC. We aren’t going to join with that. Do they produce useful stuff? Sure. But we aren’t going to be partners with them either.

In essence, I think the convergent mindset minimizes or fails to see the errors in these groups. I have my suspicions as to why this is so, but that is speculative so I’ll let it rest at that.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Don Johnson] ​

I think this sentiment misreads the history. The Presbyterians and the Baptists were not cooperating in their fights with modernism. They were fighting their own battles. They may have known each other and encouraged each other on occasion, but their paths did not cross that much. They could cooperate in an endeavor like The Fundamentals, but there was little in common in their church fellowships. I don’t see any reason for that to emerge in the future. Why would we, say, get involved in a fight in the PCA or the Bible Presbyterians? We aren’t part of them. I doubt they would appreciate the interference.

Well put. Agreed. It works both ways.

JSB

[Don Johnson]

I think this sentiment misreads the history. The Presbyterians and the Baptists were not cooperating in their fights with modernism. They were fighting their own battles. They may have known each other and encouraged each other on occasion, but their paths did not cross that much. They could cooperate in an endeavor like The Fundamentals, but there was little in common in their church fellowships. I don’t see any reason for that to emerge in the future. Why would we, say, get involved in a fight in the PCA or the Bible Presbyterians? We aren’t part of them. I doubt they would appreciate the interference.

This sentiment is more along the lines, however, not of fighting against modernism but cooperating with such things as Together for the Gospel or The Gospel Coalition. Well, that isn’t going to happen. Those groups have multitudes of problems that affect the fundamentals in profound ways. Not the least is the ongoing revelation of the charismatics. MacArthur can take a strong stand against it as a concept (and he does) but he won’t break with Piper and Mahaney who promote it. There are serious errors in the theology of Tim Keller and others in TGC. We aren’t going to join with that. Do they produce useful stuff? Sure. But we aren’t going to be partners with them either.

In essence, I think the convergent mindset minimizes or fails to see the errors in these groups. I have my suspicions as to why this is so, but that is speculative so I’ll let it rest at that.

Don,

What do you see as the difference between cooperating in an endeavor like The Fundamentals or the old prophecy conferences, “camp meetings,” Congresses and such, and things like TGC or T4G today? You raise the PCA or Bible Presbyterians of the past and how “we” didn’t interfere with their church fellowships. But it seems to me as though there are still separate church fellowships in these modern efforts. Certainly T4G is fairly loose—you have different people coming from different church fellowships. Al Mohler doesn’t seem intent on getting MacArthur to fellowship with the SBC, nor does MacArthur seem to be recruiting Ligon Duncan for the IFCA. I am not debating the specific positions or anything like that for this question… just not sure how different the categories of the past are with the categories of today.

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

[Greg Linscott]

What do you see as the difference between cooperating in an endeavor like The Fundamentals or the old prophecy conferences, “camp meetings,” Congresses and such, and things like TGC or T4G today? You raise the PCA or Bible Presbyterians of the past and how “we” didn’t interfere with their church fellowships. But it seems to me as though there are still separate church fellowships in these modern efforts. Certainly T4G is fairly loose—you have different people coming from different church fellowships. Al Mohler doesn’t seem intent on getting MacArthur to fellowship with the SBC, nor does MacArthur seem to be recruiting Ligon Duncan for the IFCA. I am not debating the specific positions or anything like that for this question… just not sure how different the categories of the past are with the categories of today.

Well, The Fundamentals and the old prophecy conferences were not really fundamentalism as such, were they? They pre-dated fundamentalism, perhaps they could be called embryonic fundamentalism. They did have a fundamentalist center, I would say, and that is they were opposed to modernism.

On the other hand, TGC and T4G have a different center. It seems to me that the center of these efforts are evangelicalism and/or Calvinism. They ignore serious doctrinal deficiencies like charismatism (continuing revelation) and the social gospel efforts of some like Tim Keller.

The difference to me is the central purpose of these efforts. In the past, Dr. Bob Jr and Ian Paisley, among others, attempted to rally fundamentalists in their World Congress meetings. The center of these efforts was fundamentalism. I think you would agree that they were quite different from TGC and T4G.

I’ve posted a response to Tyler’s list of questions (he simplified it for me) over at oxgoad, if any one is interested.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

On the other hand, TGC and T4G have a different center. It seems to me that the center of these efforts are evangelicalism and/or Calvinism.

I haven’t traveled in the TGC circles lately (in part because they blocked my account on Twitter), but the center of TGC/T4G is actually, in fact, ~ the gospel ~. It’s not a group of ‘evangelicals’, it’s not about a group of ‘Calvinists’. It’s a recognition of the fact that there are Bible believing Christians all over the place, all of whom are working together to advance (surprise!) the Gospel. That’s what is attractive to me as a young fundamentalist / convergent / dark lord of the sith / whatever the new group is that people have to be warned about.

If Don or others want to build a organization, like the FBFI, based on a joint defense and subscription to dispensationalism (or fundamentalism, as Ian Paisley and BJ Jr. did with the WCF) then that’s fine, but it’s going to be a much smaller subset and isn’t going to attract as many as something as broad as the Gospel itself. You can’t build an organization on two axes that cut against each other. The Gospel is larger than Fundamentalism. So either Evangelicals are welcome or they are not. It sounds like the FBFI wants to limit it to ‘fundamentalism’. That’s fine - but you’re going to need to define what fundamentalism you stand for and realize that you’re self-limiting in important ways. You can’t say I want the FBFI to be centered on dispensationalism and include only fundamentalists as well. Either you celebrate dispensationalism or you don’t.

So when Don argues that TGC ‘ignores doctrinal deficiencies like charismaticism and the social gospel’, he’s partially right. The TGC crowd is so broad that people who fall into those areas can join and be welcomed - because the overriding concern is the gospel, not theological purity. But I don’t think that it’s fair to say that TGC ‘ignores’ those things. You can make the case that TGC sidesteps those areas as matter of soul liberty or whatever, but I don’t think it’s outright, studied and deliberate ignorance. I do think that it’s a huge weakness in TGC, but there’s not much I can do about that - it’s not like I can ask them to re-write their founding documents or push for change with the TGC Board. As I said, I’ve been blocked, so my avenue of approach looks an awful lot like the eye of a needle. :)

Furthermore, as someone who works in NYC, I’m not real sure how fair it is to attack Keller as preaching a social gospel. From where I’m standing, it looks an awful lot more like Christians living out their lives and ministering to unbelievers in ways that Fundamentalists do not than any kind of real social gospel. And it is worth noting that the gospel always affects a broader sphere than just believers and their churches.

"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

[Jay]

I haven’t traveled in the TGC circles lately (in part because they blocked my account on Twitter), but the center of TGC/T4G is actually, in fact, ~ the gospel ~. It’s not a group of ‘evangelicals’, it’s not about a group of ‘Calvinists’.

I think it is about the gospel as they define it. Which is to say, a Calvinist gospel, although they are TGC is less overtly Calvinist than T4G. I don’t think you can argue with that.

[Jay]

So when Don argues that TGC ‘ignores doctrinal deficiencies like charismaticism and the social gospel’, he’s partially right. The TGC crowd is so broad that people who fall into those areas can join and be welcomed - because the overriding concern is the gospel, not theological purity.

Exactly. The lack of concern for theological purity is the issue. They welcomed the execrable Driscoll for many years, in spite of many complaints. Why? Because he was right on the gospel, supposedly.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Don Johnson]

Well, The Fundamentals and the old prophecy conferences were not really fundamentalism as such, were they? They pre-dated fundamentalism, perhaps they could be called embryonic fundamentalism. They did have a fundamentalist center, I would say, and that is they were opposed to modernism.

On the other hand, TGC and T4G have a different center. It seems to me that the center of these efforts are evangelicalism and/or Calvinism. They ignore serious doctrinal deficiencies like charismatism (continuing revelation) and the social gospel efforts of some like Tim Keller.

The difference to me is the central purpose of these efforts. In the past, Dr. Bob Jr and Ian Paisley, among others, attempted to rally fundamentalists in their World Congress meetings. The center of these efforts was fundamentalism. I think you would agree that they were quite different from TGC and T4G.

Don,

I’m not asking about the center, though. You seemed to be objecting in the earlier posts on the grounds that different congregations and individuals could not be allies because of incompatible ideas that distinguished different church groups from one another (such as PCA and Bible Presbyterians). But whatever their center issue was, my point is raising examples of the past is that many Fundamentalist congregations and leaders had some type of connection with others not in their specific “church groups.” While T4G may have a different center or purpose than something like a Congress of Baptist Fundamentalists or American Council of Christian Churches, I’m not sure it is a different category.
In the context of the current discussion, one could at least argue that the efforts to counter Modernism in past efforts are similar to current efforts to oppose the excesses of mainstream Evangelicalism, with a variety of examples one could cite such as Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Andy Stanley, and even Rick Warren (who arguably has enough gospel content to put him in a different category than the first two).
Whatever else, it doesn’t seem that the various specific church groups represented in this discussion do very much on their own to oppose and address more serious error… almost tending more to assume (especially in Fundamentalism) that is so off the reservation that it poses no immediate threat. But from where the so-called “Convergents” sit, could it be that there could be more of a perception of immediate threat, so better to have the benefits of some combination, whether you classify it as “alliance” or “co-belligerence,” with those who are sounding the call and opposing the error?
Why does action or even general sympathy at that level seem to constitute a betrayal of one’s “church group?”

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

[Greg Linscott]

Don Johnson wrote:

Well, The Fundamentals and the old prophecy conferences were not really fundamentalism as such, were they? They pre-dated fundamentalism, perhaps they could be called embryonic fundamentalism. They did have a fundamentalist center, I would say, and that is they were opposed to modernism.

On the other hand, TGC and T4G have a different center. It seems to me that the center of these efforts are evangelicalism and/or Calvinism. They ignore serious doctrinal deficiencies like charismatism (continuing revelation) and the social gospel efforts of some like Tim Keller.

The difference to me is the central purpose of these efforts. In the past, Dr. Bob Jr and Ian Paisley, among others, attempted to rally fundamentalists in their World Congress meetings. The center of these efforts was fundamentalism. I think you would agree that they were quite different from TGC and T4G.

Don,

I’m not asking about the center, though. You seemed to be objecting in the earlier posts on the grounds that different congregations and individuals could not be allies because of incompatible ideas that distinguished different church groups from one another (such as PCA and Bible Presbyterians). But whatever their center issue was, my point is raising examples of the past is that many Fundamentalist congregations and leaders had some type of connection with others not in their specific “church groups.” While T4G may have a different center or purpose than something like a Congress of Baptist Fundamentalists or American Council of Christian Churches, I’m not sure it is a different category.

Well, it depends on what you are talking about. When it comes to the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy, those efforts were very denomination specific. The Baptists had their fight, the Presbyterians theirs. And it looks like the PCA has some trouble stirring on various fronts at the moment, see the Bayly bros. blog for more details. What I was responding to was the question “why can’t we join forces?” Well, we have different fights on our hands.

I agree that The Fundamentals or the prophecy conferences and the like were efforts where fundamentalists reached across denominational lines to encourage one another. That is fine as far as it goes, and hasn’t been unknown in fairly recent history. The FBFI had some connections (through Rod Bell and the Joneses) with Paisley and the Free Presbyterians. That doesn’t mean the activity of the FBFI as such would spend much time on joint efforts, but the connections still existed.

[Greg Linscott]

In the context of the current discussion, one could at least argue that the efforts to counter Modernism in past efforts are similar to current efforts to oppose the excesses of mainstream Evangelicalism, with a variety of examples one could cite such as Joel Osteen, Joyce Meyer, Andy Stanley, and even Rick Warren (who arguably has enough gospel content to put him in a different category than the first two).

Why does action or even general sympathy at that level seem to constitute a betrayal of one’s “church group?”

What do you mean by action or general sympathy?

On the one hand, what specific action should we (as outsiders) take towards the types you mention that we have not taken? What action are the supposed insiders in their circles taking towards such teachers? I’m not sure that you have a point here.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

[Don Johnson] I think it is about the gospel as they define it. Which is to say, a Calvinist gospel, although they are TGC is less overtly Calvinist than T4G. I don’t think you can argue with that.

There is only one gospel. What do you mean by the ‘Calvinist gospel’? Is it the ‘Lordship’ gospel? How do you define it?

Exactly. The lack of concern for theological purity is the issue. They welcomed the execrable Driscoll for many years, in spite of many complaints. Why? Because he was right on the gospel, supposedly.

So for Christians…do we make the purity of the gospel our defining concern, or do we make the gospel our defining concern. That is where the division occurs…and this is why I said, on a different thread, that the primary issue between Fundamentalists and Convergents is where the emphasis is placed. Both will defend their position against attack. Both will separate over it. But they don’t look or act the same or respond to the same ‘triggers’ (and I use that term loosely).

And for the record, Don, a bunch of us YF’s / Convergents / Evangelicals did push back on Driscoll. T4G shut us down quickly, usually by blacklisting/banning the accounts of people who were voicing concern. That’s what the old SI thread on #TGCBlockparty was about from a couple years back. Most of us got the message they sent and pulled away from them as a result.

EDIT - this isn’t the thread I’m looking for, but there was an discussion of separation within TGC related to the TD Jakes imbroglio a few years back that I found online.

"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

[Jay]

Don Johnson wrote:

I think it is about the gospel as they define it. Which is to say, a Calvinist gospel, although they are TGC is less overtly Calvinist than T4G. I don’t think you can argue with that.

There is only one gospel. What do you mean by the ‘Calvinist gospel’? Is it the ‘Lordship’ gospel? How do you define it?

It is not how I define it, it is how some Calvinists define it. To them, the gospel includes the so-called “Doctrines of Grace”. As such it excludes those who don’t accept the tenets of Calvinism.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Here’s their explanation of what the gospel is, reproduced from the TGC website:

The Gospel
We believe that the gospel is the good news of Jesus Christ—God’s very wisdom. Utter folly to the world, even though it is the power of God to those who are being saved, this good news is christological, centering on the cross and resurrection: the gospel is not proclaimed if Christ is not proclaimed, and the authentic Christ has not been proclaimed if his death and resurrection are not central (the message is: “Christ died for our sins … [and] was raised”). This good news is biblical (his death and resurrection are according to the Scriptures), theological and salvific (Christ died for our sins, to reconcile us to God), historical (if the saving events did not happen, our faith is worthless, we are still in our sins, and we are to be pitied more than all others), apostolic (the message was entrusted to and transmitted by the apostles, who were witnesses of these saving events), and intensely personal (where it is received, believed, and held firmly, individual persons are saved).

Do you, Don, agree with this, or do you think that it is inadequate. If so, why?
I’m not playing ‘gotcha’ here. I’m trying to understand your position.

"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

[Don Johnson]

What do you mean by action or general sympathy?

On the one hand, what specific action should we (as outsiders) take towards the types you mention that we have not taken? What action are the supposed insiders in their circles taking towards such teachers? I’m not sure that you have a point here.

By action or general sympathy, I’m talking about the kinds of things that have some being labeled “Convergent,” especially those things that cause concern, but cannot be said to conclusively conclude that the person in question is not ceasing to (as quoted by Vaughn in his interview article)…”believe the Bible, obey the Bible, proclaim the Bible, and defend the Bible.”

Regarding specific action of the “insiders,” I would say that one obvious thing has been the effectiveness at rallying a significant number of pastors (especially from the new generation) to guard against pragmatism and love Bible exposition by modeling and championing. This has been accomplished, not only by things like the T4G meetings, but by effective engagement through publishing (and by that, not just printing books). Whether or not they always openly oppose and identify those in error, what they have done has been effective at providing an alternative to prosperity gospel, Charismaticism, and seeker-sensitivity. Some of what is being derided in this latest Frontline issue as a desire for relevance might just be effective communication and evidence of knowing the audience. How effective is taking the right stand if you aren’t also persuading others to stand with you?

That isn’t to say popularity is the only measure of success. But the reality is that if popularity were the only consideration by those “Converging,” you would see far more leaving Fundamentalism for the Seeker model. Whatever else, it seems that if the birds are indeed leaving the nest, they’re not falling from the tree, so to speak.

What actions could better be taken? Well, it does seem, for one, that as much criticism toward the Seeker model (and “leftward”) could be made as is given toward the “Conservative Evangelicals.” You mentioned Rod Pell and Ian Paisley. As it stands right now, it sometimes seems that more effort is being made to distinguish paedos from credos than the opposition both parties would have to the errors of Rome (speaking comparatively, not literally on those issues).
Instead, the force behind the coining of the Convergent” category seems bent on a pessimistic perspective… “they hate us ‘cause they ain’t us.” Instead of looking at the situation, learning from it, and considering how the cause might be better communicated to rally others to it, it looks like a double-down consolidation, “the dwarfs are for the dwarfs!” Last Battle kind of mentality. Everything seems to be the fault of those perceived to be departing… no evidence of “what could we do or could we have done?”

Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN

Jay:

See the link Greg provided above. The distinctiveness of TGC is not limited to the gospel per se. It is the gospel plus. That is my point.

Greg:

What??? I’m not getting anything out of your last post.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don,

Linking Tim Keller to the Social Gospel is pretty laughable, considering his church has helped start 387 churches in the past 13 years. I have extensively studied the history of the social gospel and liberalism from the late 19th/early 20th century and have extensively read Keller’s books, heard his sermons, and read position papers from his church and really the only thing that he has in common with the social gospel movement is that he also cares for justice for the poor. Of course there have been discernment blog sites and posts and even a book or two that try to link Keller to the Social Gospel, but they lack the necessary theological scholarship about the social gospel and they also build their arguments on logical fallacies. Now if you had mentioned Tim Keller’s leanings and/or embracing of Theistic evolution, I would be much more sympathetic towards your argument. In my opinion that is a problem.