Don Johnson on 'The Convergence" and Fundamentalism
Bro. Johnson’s gracious discussion of “Convergents” and fundamentalism. A response to this article.
- 30 views
“I would agree with this, but most convergents would leave fundamentalism for a model that looks like Dever and Capitol. Strong Biblical teaching, with a focus on theology and discipleship, separation over those elements that are clearly outlined in Scripture as points on separation, and a mixed music style with a focus on theologically strong worship music (not a rock concert). So when someone asked what does it look like, most convergent churches look more like Capitol than Tri-City.”
It did for me. After years of being battered and bruised by hyper-fundamentalist type separation, a fundamentalist friend suggested that I visit Capitol Hill Baptist Church. We were refreshed, revived, and encouraged.
I have no problem if the FBFI is content to restrict their fellowship with boundaries that they believe are important. They shouldn’t be surprised that a younger generation that questions their “my way or the highway” attitude decides to travel. They’re not going into apostasy; they’re still your brothers. They’re not Absalom. In fact they may just be Paul and you may be Peter.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I think FBFI’s attempt to define fundamentalism in its resolutions is praise-worthy. I have especially appreciated the preamble below.
A fundamentalist is a genuine believer in the Person, Work, and Doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ who:
- Regards the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as the verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God;
- Recognizes the Bible as the authoritative voice of God on all issues pertaining to life – civil, social, and spiritual;
- Endeavors to practice Biblical conduct in all areas of his life;
- Believes in all the foundational truths of historic Christianity, including:
- The inspiration of the Bible
- The virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ
- The Deity of Christ
- The bodily resurrection, ascension, and literal return of the Lord Jesus Christ
- Salvation by grace through faith and regeneration by the Holy spirit
- The eternal destinies of Heaven or Hell
- Man is a sinner by nature and by choice
- Earnestly contends for the faith, which includes a militant defense and proclamation of the faith and separation from all forms of heresy, apostasy, unbelief, and inclusivism, direct or indirect.
- Is compelled by love to expose error, within and without the household of faith.
I feel that Dever meets all six criteria, but is clearly not regarded by some as a fundamentalist.
So the issue here is -
Can fundamentalism be objectively defined, or will its definition and practice always be subject to personal whim?
John B. Lee
The coveted identification of approbation is …
“Historic Fundamentalist”
Only one group can “own it”. FBFI is such a group
The one who has “it” - denies that any others have “it”
Kind of like …
Didn’t historic rules fundamentalism say something about movies? :^)
Seriously, I can go with what John cites from the FBFI, though I disagree with the application of a couple of the points about holy living that the FBFI would make. One big thing I’d add to the list is the Trinity—as far as I can tell, you really can’t even get out of Genesis 1 and understand the Scriptures properly without a Trinitarian view of the Godhead, and sad to say—Elephant Room 2 and a host of churches listening to every word MacDonald and Jakes say and Moody Press—a lot of people are waffling on this critical doctrine. I’ve left a church in part because they were soft on the Trinity in exactly this manner.
To be very blunt about the matter, if fundamental churches of all “rings” or stripes left the social issues aside for a while and concentrated on the theological Fundamentals, the Solas, and the Trinity, I would dare suggest that there would be a massive revival as people realized we were serious about God.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
Which, I guess, is Mark Dever’s blemish? Holding to the fundamentals, but associates himself with some who are not 100% holding to the fundamentals?
Just trying to learn here.
It seems that a number of FBFI churches have pastors that attend seminaries that have the same associations as Dever, like SBTS, for instance. Why are those churches not considered evangelical?
[Barry L.]Which, I guess, is Mark Dever’s blemish? Holding to the fundamentals, but associates himself with some who are not 100% holding to the fundamentals?
Just trying to learn here.
It seems that a number of FBFI churches have pastors that attend seminaries that have the same associations as Dever, like SBTS, for instance. Why are those churches not considered evangelical?
Some Fundamentalists failed to separate from weird personalties with completely unBiblical views. To name a few:
- Racists and wrong views on anthropology (think Miscegenation)
- Wrong views of the Scriptures - KJVonlism
- Heresies such as Hyles/Schaap
- Plus some wrongly defamed others (Bob Jones III / John MacArthur over the “blood”) - did the FBFI disassociate with him? No!
When Bob Jones attacked MacArthur in their magazine, Faith for the Family, I already knew what MacArthur’s position was on the blood of Christ. Fundamentalist leaders said that MacArthur denied the blood. I knew that wasn’t true, because I had read through his Hebrews commentary. The type of argumentation used against MacArthur was so superficial and silly that I was mystified. To start, MacArthur did not deny the blood, but even if he did, his error should have been pointed out from scripture. Bob Jones and its surrogates really did argue a strawman at the time. Once they saw that they had misrepresented MacArthur, they should have recanted right away, but they dug in for over a decade in typical fundamentalist fashion. As the winds toward MacArthur began to change among young fundamentalists, Bob Jones came out with a weak apology many years later.
[Bert Perry]To be very blunt about the matter, if fundamental churches of all “rings” or stripes left the social issues aside for a while and concentrated on the theological Fundamentals, the Solas, and the Trinity, I would dare suggest that there would be a massive revival as people realized we were serious about God.
Here is the root of where I struggle with this issue. If we think about this carefully, this is where I struggle:
- We would all agree that someone like Mark Dever is a Christian, and we will fellowship with him in heaven
- We would agree that someone who is aligned with the FBFI, such as Don, are Christians, and despite the fact that Don would separate from Mark, we will fellowship with Don and others in heaven
- When we all die and are in heaven, is it Mark that needs to change his position or the FBFI member?
If it is the FBFI member, than why do we have to live out an extrabiblical separation on earth? Why do we create something on earth, that is neither taught in Scripture, or will not be the reality of eternity? I struggled with this, and in the end, I just couldn’t justify it. I got tired with an image created on earth, that if lived out in heaven would result in a very special group of a few thousand that sit closer to the throne of God than any of the other Christians. I am not sure David or even Peter would have made it in the FBFI. This is not about separation, but the degree of separation. Few would argue that Mark Dever does not have one of the most well thought out and well structured views on church discipline and separation, the argument is only rooted in the fact that he doesn’t practice enough degrees of separation, which most convergents would argue will be mute on our last breath.
I wonder if a conservative Christian who wasn’t raised in a fundamental Baptist atmosphere would read this entire exchange and think to himself:
These guys are really crazy. What losers.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
[Jay]I can’t wait for the answers to Larry’s post. That ought to be fascinating discussion.
The FBFI defines a Fundamentalist as:
A fundamentalist is a genuine believer in the Person, Work, and Doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ who:
- Regards the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, as the verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallible Word of God;
- Recognizes the Bible as the authoritative voice of God on all issues pertaining to life – civil, social, and spiritual;
- Endeavors to practice Biblical conduct in all areas of his life;
- Believes in all the foundational truths of historic Christianity, including:
- The inspiration of the Bible
- The virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ
- The Deity of Christ
- The bodily resurrection, ascension, and literal return of the Lord Jesus Christ
- Salvation by grace through faith and regeneration by the Holy Spirit
- The eternal destinies of Heaven or Hell
- Man is a sinner by nature and by choice
- Earnestly contends for the faith, which includes a militant defense and proclamation of the faith and separation from all forms of heresy, apostasy, unbelief, and inclusivism, direct or indirect.
- Is compelled by love to expose error, within and without the household of faith.
Mark Dever does all of this - every bit, although maybe not as ‘militantly’ as some would prefer, which is a subjective criteria anyway - and Don or the FBFI is still going to argue that he’s not a fundamentalist?
Can someone please explain this to me, because clearly there’s some other hoop that has to be jumped through to live in ‘our’ good graces?
Mark probably doesn’t want to be affiliated with us - and who can blame him if this is the way we ‘do theology’? Sheesh.
"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
If fundamentalists considered the amount of time they spend in inter-family sniping, then re-directed this energy towards actual productive ends, then this movement would be much, much healthier.
- Daniel Kirk, a heretic NT guy from Fuller, has just released a book about denying Jesus’ divinity.
- Nobody knows what the Trinity is.
- Young people are being indoctrinated with pagan views of human sexuality and identity.
- Matthew Vines’ book continues to confuse and seduce Christians.
- Inerrancy is being increasingly denied by moderate evangelicals.
- A reader-response hermeneutic is increasingly dominant in Western Christianity (“this is what it means to me!”).
There is work to be done. Too bad we’re letting other people do that work, while we’re busy arguing with each another over labels. I think this conversation is necessary because I feel the FBFI is wrong, and their energies are misdirected in this case. But, I still don’t like the conversation. I’d rather talk about the Trinity or the use of the law for the Christian.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
https://centralmn.wordpress.com/2016/11/16/what-is-a-convergent/
Because I know the boys in the FBFI (I am a member), I think I know what they mean when they talk about “convergents.” If I didn’t already have a good idea, though, I don’t believe that either the organization or Pastor Johnson would give me much help in figuring it out. And I honestly have no idea who might actually fit all of the items on Pastor Johnson’s list. I’m generally sympathetic to the concerns of the FBFI, or I wouldn’t retain membership. I Still, I wish they’d do a better job of explaining themselves
[TylerR]
- Daniel Kirk, a heretic NT guy from Fuller, has just released a book about denying Jesus’ divinity.
- Nobody knows what the Trinity is.
- Young people are being indoctrinated with pagan views of human sexuality and identity.
- Matthew Vines’ book continues to confuse and seduce Christians.
- Inerrancy is being increasingly denied by moderate evangelicals.
- A reader-response hermeneutic is increasingly dominant in Western Christianity (“this is what it means to me!”).
Tyler,
Suppose you are in fellowship with a church across town. Perhaps you’ve done some joint mission work together or something. You feel that church, though not exactly the same, is basically in agreement with your core principles and you view them as a sister ministry in many ways. Then, one day you look at their website and see they have Daniel Kirk scheduled for a Bible conference, or TD Jakes, or Matthew Vines, or Robert Gundry. I’m assuming you would try to talk them out of it but let’s say they persist? Will you stay in fellowship with that cross-town church? To me, that’s the primary issue.
Discussion