Don Johnson responds to Bauder on Separation

The problem with most of these criteria though is that in a hundred years, almost all of it will be moot. It won’t matter what school you prefer or if you drank alcohol and avoided drunkenness. It won’t matter if you preferred SGM to SoundForth / Wilds music. It won’t matter if you liked Piper, MacArthur or Dever to Pastor so and so from the FBFI.

Bert’s definition is better but we are still back to who is a fundamentalist or a cons. evangelical. Until we get that resolved, the best we can do is ‘Yes, you are’ or ‘No, I’m not’.

The only labels that truly matter are those who are ‘believers/disciples’ and those who are not. The rest may be nice and helpful, but it just leads to petty divisions like those outlined at the beginning of 1st Corinthians. That’s why I wish the FBFI would drop the petty witch hunts for people who are Christians but aren’t just like ‘my Christians’.

[Jay]

The problem with most of these criteria though is that in a hundred years, almost all of it will be moot. It won’t matter what school you prefer or if you drank alcohol and avoided drunkenness. It won’t matter if you preferred SGM to SoundForth / Wilds music. It won’t matter if you liked Piper, MacArthur or Dever to Pastor so and so from the FBFI.

I tend to agree with Jay, but worth noting is that if the FBFI made their point that these issues are in fact critical to the Gospel, it would matter a hundred years from now. No? I am under no impression, shall we say, that I ought to be adding to the laughter in Mordor, so disagree as I do, let’s give them a chance and the tools they need to make a better case than I’ve seen before.

Side note; the idea of Orcs laughing is….well….funny….and by the way, does my acceptance of some movies indicate I’m 2/5 on convergentism? And if Don gets the joke, does that mean…

As weighty as the matters of drinking and music are, the larger issue at play here is whether or not fundamentalism can exist outside the FBFI’s definitions. That is, whether or not convergents can be fundamentalists even though they are not FBFIists (sorry!).

I believe those in the FBFI would answer no.

TylerR challenged this stance in his response, and argued that fundamentalism has historically accommodated a larger cohort of Christian diversity than the one espoused by the FBFI. I am persuaded that Tyler R is correct in his historical presentation of fundamentalism. The question then is whether or not the idea of “big tent” fundamentalism of yesteryear still has value. If it does not, I see Christian fundamentalism breaking up into ever smaller dwindling sects, all with their own Maginot lines of practice and decorum. I view this outcome as the most tragic, and one to be avoided.

Bert, just to clarify my last post…if the FBFI wants to take those issues and make them foundational to the type of fundamentalism they espouse, then more power to them. Just don’t argue that they are separating from believers due to SIN.

Sin issues are always clear cut and easily identifiable from Scripture. Listening to SGM is not a clear violation of Scripture unless you are prepared to add a lot of stuff to the Bible.

what is “modern” music? Isn’t Chris Anderson “modern?” Is DBTS modern? Is CBTS modern?

[Bert Perry]

Given the history of this, I’d like to propose another definition. Mark’s got a good start, but as I pointed out earlier, it includes the vast majority of the Bible believing world and thus has a lack of specificity.

I would submit this definition: A convergentist is a person within a traditional fundamental church who seeks to change that church to align more with conservative evangelical churches in terms of theology and culture. Specific areas of change he may be working for include, but are not limited to, modern music in the church, acceptance of beverage alcohol, “New Calvinism”, and the acceptance of non-fundamental colleges as viable places for young people to study.

That narrows it down quite a bit, I think, but it still suffers from the question of whether it is “or” or “and”; that is, does it suffice that a person has one or two characteristics, or is it necessary to do the full Mark Driscoll/CJ Mahaney to get into the club? Then there is also the question of whether the signs (and wonders?) of convergentism are uniformly bad.

And in that light, unless we can draw a firm connection between these factors, I’d encourage (again) FBFI to address them individually, defining their terms. Otherwise we are all going to get pretty muddled in our thinking.

On the light side, I only score 1/4 on Mark’s scale. I don’t know that I get that decoder ring, or to learn the secret handshake. :^)

.

Sam: Oh no! Now I’ve got to define my terms, too! Hoisted on my own petard… :^)

Seriously, as far as I can tell, “modern” music is hard to define, partially because of multiple definitions in fundamentalism, and partly because of muddled thinking among fundamentalists. As a rule, it means that “on beat” music is OK, but off beat is not, it avoids the use of electric guitars and drums (especially in a drum set), and as a rule excludes any genre derived from the blues (jazz, rock & roll, rap/hip-hop) or the folk music of central/eastern Europe.

A less charitable way of phrasing it—and one that I think is regrettably heard by our black brothers and sisters when “we” make the case against this “modern” music—is that the music of white protestants prior to Elvis Presley is OK, but other music, not so much. I’m not accusing Don or anyone on the FBFI side of the equation of racism here, but I think we’d be foolish to think that people don’t hear it that way.

[JBL]

As weighty as the matters of drinking and music are, the larger issue at play here is whether or not fundamentalism can exist outside the FBFI’s definitions. That is, whether or not convergents can be fundamentalists even though they are not FBFIists (sorry!).

I believe those in the FBFI would answer no.

John, I’m not weighing in on the very enlightening comments on this thread in general, but I do want to point out that the question you pose above is a false dichotomy. Or, perhaps to give you the benefit of the doubt, it is really more than one question:

1. Does fundamentalism exist outside the FBFI? Yes
2. Does fundamentalism exist outside the FBFI’s definitions? Well, by definition, if one defines a term and something is not within the scope of that definition, then the answer is no. This would be true, however, no matter who is doing the defining, the FBFI, the Gospel Coalition, the man in the moon, whoever.
3. Can a convergent be a fundamentalist if he is not a member of the FBFI? If a convergent is not a fundamentalist by definition, then the answer is no. It is irrelevant whether he is a member of the FBFI or not.

I hope that might clarify your question.

[JBL]

TylerR challenged this stance in his response, and argued that fundamentalism has historically accommodated a larger cohort of Christian diversity than the one espoused by the FBFI. I am persuaded that Tyler R is correct in his historical presentation of fundamentalism. The question then is whether or not the idea of “big tent” fundamentalism of yesteryear still has value. If it does not, I see Christian fundamentalism breaking up into ever smaller dwindling sects, all with their own Maginot lines of practice and decorum. I view this outcome as the most tragic, and one to be avoided.

The question is not one of big tent fundamentalism, but simply a matter of defining what fundamentalism is. All of the members of the FBFI whom I know personally are active in the Lord’s work with others who are not in the FBFI. The FBFI is a vehicle to express our views, but it certainly isn’t the be all and end all of our ministry or fellowship.

I think there is a tendency on the part of some to be unclear, or to be unwilling to be clear for various reasons. Here’s a few that I suggest:

1. Perhaps people aren’t clearly because they don’t want to take time to actually prove their point because it would involve research and verifying what people actually say, do, or believe. It’s easier to throw out generalities. They may be right, but simply unwilling to prove it.
2. Perhaps people don’t want to be clear because it takes too much work to precise. It is easier to be general. It’s like using the word “stuff” or “etc.” It is easy because you don’t have actually have to define it.
3. Perhaps people don’t want to clearly identify something or someone because there remains plausible deniability. If you name someone and turns out you are wrong, you are wrong. If you don’t name them, there is plausible deniability that you were talking about person X because just as well could have been talking about person Y. In the end, you don’t actually have to be talking about anyone.
4. People don’t want to clearly identify something or someone because it involves a friend that they disagree with but don’t want to publicly throw under the bus. It might be someone who is “one of us” (whoever “us” is).

We could, I suppose, judge the validity of these reasons or deny them and/or suggest others. After all, we are good at judging.

While I think “prove it to me” can be obnoxious at times (I am not saying that of Kevin), if it is so obvious, it should be easy to show. I remember a conversation with someone where I asked for evidence of a charge and he refused to provide it. He carried on for several exchanges asserting that I knew who and what he was talking about and he didn’t know what to say if I didn’t know. I told him he could simply provide evidence such as a quote or a link. He never did though it would have been shorter to simply provide evidence. In the end, he completely bailed and IMO it was because he knew he couldn’t actually demonstrate it. But he could make the charge and get away with it even though he wouldn’t defend it. But it should have been easy.

The whole talk of “convergents” is nothing new, IMO. It’s not particularly helpful. Relationships are always better.

The question is not one of big tent fundamentalism, but simply a matter of defining what fundamentalism is.

On the first part, we agree. I don’t agree with Don or Mark that Fundamentalism has a lot to do with the cultural things they keep circling back to. I don’t even have a problem with the FBFI deciding to incorporate those things into their idea of Fundamentalism. Just don’t argue that it’s real, biblical Fundamentalism.

All of the members of the FBFI whom I know personally are active in the Lord’s work with others who are not in the FBFI.

Don, you’ve also been pretty clear that convergents are in sin and need to be warned against. That’s your point. Mentioning that you work with people who aren’t in the FBFI is irrelevant. Would you work with a convergent? I’m pretty sure the answer is no.

Can a convergent be a fundamentalist if he is not a member of the FBFI? If a convergent is not a fundamentalist by definition, then the answer is no. It is irrelevant whether he is a member of the FBFI or not.

It is relevant when the FBFI is the only Fundamentalist organization that I know of that is using ‘convergent’ as an adjective to describe other fundamentalists. Are there any other Fundamentalist entities that are talking about this? Maybe the SoL / Hyles crowd?

Don, I’m afraid that you’ve confused things here in your response to John: John asked not whether fundamentalism could exist outside the FBFI, but rather outside the FBFI’s definitions. There is no false dichotomy there; you’ve drawn up a list of characteristics of “convergent” theology that you (and others in the FBFI) clearly would call sin, and John rightly asks whether you believe fundamentalism can exist outside the FBFI’s definitions.

So maybe, just maybe, you can respond to repeated requests to define what a convergent is (multiple people have tried to help you with this), why the disparate signs of being a convergent are so lumped together, and whether one can have fellowship with someone whose fundamentalism does not follow FBFI’s definitions. Let’s stop dancing around these critical issues.

I wanted to revisit Larry’s post to comment on the motivations because some are convinced that the nebulous ‘convergents’ (of which I am fairly sure that Don or Mark would say I am one) ‘despise’ the FBFI or are out to destroy it. So I want to just comment on what I think is going on from their side using his reasons.

1. I am convinced that Don has the right motives. I am also convinced that he is serious that ‘we’ pose a serious threat to other believers.

2. I do not believe that he is doing this because he is lazy or sloppy with his research.

3. I refuse to believe that Don is practicing plausible deniability. I am sure that there are others who are continually contacting him privately to reaffirm this article and belief.

4. I do not think that Don is addressing it publicly because he wants to warn some personal friends or acquaintances, and don’t think that online is the appropriate venue to do such a thing, even if he is. That’s where face to face or personal interaction should come into play.

So…I don’t know where to go from here, but I hope that this post clarifies what I see going on.

What I am concerned about is that the net result of the FBFI is unnecessarily (and sinfully) dividing the Body of Christ by this insistence that ‘convergents’ are heretics or apostates (pick your term). That’s a sinful factionalism that Paul hammers on in I Cor. 1:

I appeal to you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment. For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers. What I mean is that each one of you says, “I follow Paul,” or “I follow Apollos,” or “I follow Cephas,” or “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name. (I did baptize also the household of Stephanas. Beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized anyone else.) For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

The recurring theme here is that labels are only valuable if the terms can be clearly defined. When it comes to large groups of people, labels can only tell you what philosophical or theological continent they are on, and they might in some cases even direct you to the state or general vicinity. So they serve a very general purpose, but there are far too many factors involved to make them all that useful in pinpointing specifics for the purposes of rebuking or separating. IMHO.

The sticky wicket is on what kinds of error Christians are called to challenge or separate. Person-to-person counseling of their brother or sister on controversial choices is based on a relationship, compassion, and investment in spiritual growth and restoration.

However, pigeonholing a large group of people as for the purposes of repudiation — what’s the purpose, the goal? That’s where large scale divisiveness has the opportunity to counteract other, very clearly stated Scriptural mandates. IMHO.

On the FBFI website you can read over a decade of resolutions, with stated positions on everything from Jerry Falwell to the ERA to euthanasia. So one could say they have defined their terms. But I came upon:

96.16 REGARDING UNITY IN NON-ESSENTIALS The FBF condemns a false ecumenism; however, we urge all Fundamentalists to practice a true biblical unity with those who hold without compromise those doctrines that are essential to Fundamentalism. In those areas which are not essential we should allow latitude and differences in a spirit of goodwill.

which seems to promote balance and a certain amount of tolerance. Anyway, the underlying premise seems to be that the FBFI are the gatekeepers of doctrines essential to Fundamentalism.

There has to be a point at which we can respect another person’s conscience on non-essentials and continue to be comrades.

• If that’s the FBFI’s conviction that one is not a Fundementalist in their defined terms whatever that may be how is that sin[?] As long as their not calling you heretic or apostate directly one must respect their position and conviction.

I disagree with that last line, but let’s back up a minute here.

• There are principles in scripture - broad ideas based on what we see and apply as we interpret Scripture systemically.
• There are commands in scripture - very specific and clear instructions by God that are recorded…like the 10 commandments. To violate a command is sin.
• There are convictions that we develop based on scriptural study - what I believe because of the principles in Scripture (and also explicit commands like Mark 12:30).

1 Cor. 8 is very clear that it is entirely possible for believers to have differing convictions on matters based on what they see and where they are in their walk with the Lord. This is why Paul can tell the Corinthian believers that if someone has no issue with buying meat in a pagan temple, to let them continue, because there is no such thing as a false god (v. 4-6). On the other hand, he tells the believer that does have problems with buying meat there to abstain from doing so (v. 7-8). Furthermore, Paul also explicitly commands those who can eat idol meat to abstain from causing problems for those who have a problem with eating the idol meat (v. 9-13).

It is for this reason that I have zero issues with the FBFI deciding to draw their own lines on issues that are not clear. Nor do I have an issue with respecting the principles of our brothers that do not want to listen to contemporary music (or that are KJV preferred, or whatever). In those instances, I’m bound by I Cor. 8:9-13 and Gal. 5:13-15 to respect their differences even though I disagree because I do not want to hinder their walk with God. I’ve said that in the past here.

I’ve participated in enough threads on SI in regards to music to believe that there is no clear scriptural case to bar believers from listening to Getty/SGM, and I say that after arguing about it for literally years; there’s easily a dozen threads there that you can refer to if you want. I’m not going to dignify the other things that Mark suggested as ‘sins’, like:

• preferring Mark Dever, John Piper, and John MacArthur
• preferring Westminster Seminary to BJU

On the other hand - when the FBFI decides to attack fellow Christians over things like music, preachers, and schools, they violate Christ’s clear command to be peacemakers (Matthew 5:9) and Paul’s instructions to be at peace with each other (Romans 12:18, 14:19, I Cor. 14:33), it does become a sin issue. It tears at the overall unity of the body of Christ (John 17, Romans 12:3-21, I Corinthians 12:12-31, Ephesians 4:1-16). And that’s why I (and others) push back.

If Don or Mark can define ‘convergency’ as sin based on God’s word, then let’s see the case. But I’m not going to stand by idly and watch as they create strife and division over something that they continually refuse to define - first, because I have no stomach for it, and second, because it dishonors Christ, who came to earth and died for us to put an end to these kinds of foolish and mean-spirited fights (Eph. 2:13-22). That’s before we even get into the fact that the FBFI has continually, and for a long time, elevated cultural norms within the group to the level of sin (rebellion against God) instead of leaving them at the level of areas where Christians can disagree.

What Don and the FBFI leaders are doing is not trivial - not in the least. And some of us care enough to push back and ask for more information. Instead of discussing it or trying to win us to their side, they instead snipe and insinuate that we ‘ought to know’. That’s also a sin against us, but I am letting that go because I need to focus on the bigger issues I just mentioned.

So this is a very big deal. I can’t let this pass - not as someone who remembers what the FBFI used to be, and who wishes it would return to that. Not as a Christian. Not in the least.