John Vaughn: " Evangelical Fundamentalist Convergence"?

Perhaps it is wagon circling,

But to turn the tables back to you, so what? You are not required to read or follow them. If you are part of the organization, you can resign.

As Aaron has alluded to in his “Changing Targets” post earlier this morning, it has decided that the greatest threat to biblical Christianity is convergence on matters of personal separation and ministerial practice. It has reacted as such. Just let the FBFI be what it want to be and do what it wants to do… unless you feel that they are hurting biblical Christianity, which would be another topic of discussion…

Aaron wrote this:

The movement was about trying to solve some problems biblically… not about preserving itself or the distinctive identity it eventually developed.

I agree with this. That is why I think it is a shame the FBFI seems to be more concerned about preserving its own particular brand of 1950-1990 era fundamentalism than combating theological liberalism, apostasy and cultural madness.

I am a fundamentalist. We can do better than write articles about the “hidden agendas” of some secret “Convergence” group. Their goal often seems to be about wagon-circling, about militancy over fundamentalist culture, not liberalism or apostasy. This is sad and pathetic to me. We have good men. We have educated men. We can do better as a movement.

Fundamentalists write books on separation, alcohol and issue vague allegations of sinister plots among their younger brethren, but do not engage biblical illiteracy, the LGBT issue, inerrancy, the Bible version issue, or deep theology in general. This is why Dr. McCune’s systematic was such a milestone - a fundamentalist who actually wrote a theology book! Who woulda thunk it?

A senior GARBC guy once told me something I already knew - fundamentalists are often afraid to write real critiques of anything, or engage seriously in theology, because they fear being attacked from within. Ask Bauder how that feels … What a sad commentary on fundamentalism.

We can do better, folks. We need to alter our targets. We really do. That is my point. I know the FBFI can do better, and I wish they would.

My first exposure to the FBFI (it was the FBF then) was nearly 40 years ago. The enemies then were apostasy, Roman Catholicism, and the ecumenical movement as personified in Billy Graham. Annual meetings required a big venue (I think one was held at BJU) and featured preachers from Rod Bell (Baptist), Bob Jones Jr. (non-denominational), and Ian Paisley (Presbyterian).

In the 80’s John MacArthur was treated as an enemy over a misrepresentation of his teaching on the blood of Christ. I wrote to MacArthur and shared his cogent explanation with some FBF brethren and was ignored and their attack on him continued. After sitting in meetings where pulpit potshots were taken at anyone who was not solidly in the FBF, I walked away.

Today I see a group that continues to cast aspersions on brethren with whom they have differences and this once large group has circled the wagons to point where their national meetings can take place in a local church and their annual resolutions are harder to find than a Clinton email.

BTW, people have not “separated” themselves from the FBFI; they’ve simply walked away and seem to have chosen to ignore a group that ignored them and their questions of their practices.

John, agreed that the implicit target of FBFI’s column is reaching out to conservative evangelicals; but if so, why not just say so and state the concern and the reasons they feel it is theologically risky? Why beat around the bush? If indeed conservative evangelicals are compromising critical doctrine, why not just come out and say it?

Is it simply clumsy rhetoric (are these pastors really “apt to teach”?), or is it cowardice in light of the fact that most fundamentalists really aren’t that hard line on secondary/tertiary separation? Certainly conservative evangelicals are not in general compromising on the Fundamentals, the Solas, or other critical doctrine.

And our place here? Well, the article IS a criticism, as Dave notes, of “our” wing of the movement. Moreover, it’s about the future of a movement we all cherish, and finally, it’s an opportunity for us to think things through.

Think what you want. But don’t claim that John Vaughn is not “apt to teach.”

The premise of the article is deeply flawed in that it assumes things that it really needs to prove. I recognize that it is an intro piece, but it functions more like a drive-by shot than offering anything of substance to consider. If forming new friendships = convergence, then aren’t the efforts to build connections with Crown and West Coast by key players in the FBF a form of convergence that represents (yet another) change in the FBF? Why is it okay to come along side of Sexton, Schaap, etc., but not so for anybody perceived to be left of center?

The purpose of some articles appears to be sinful, from my perspective. A parachurch entity is promoting conflict within local assemblies by putting the motives and actions of properly called leaders under suspicion. It is one thing to argue for a position based on the Scriptures, but it is something very different to accuse pastors of nefarious motives without proof. The authors, I’m sure, would be furious if I wrote an article on the foolish arguments that have been promoted in fundamentalism in defense of [pick the subject which they defend] and sent it into the homes of their church members. Yet, it seems that this is exactly what they have done by implying that leading a church toward a position which is out of step with FBF favor is covert neo-evangelicalism. Ridiculous and wrong.

As a follow up to our opening editorial posted yesterday, today we are posting “Whetting the Appetite,” being excerpts from some of the key articles in our latest issue of FrontLine. I think readers will find more specifics in the actual articles rather than in the opening editorial. By nature it is intended to be a generalization, so I don’t quite get the criticism of generalities. Buy the magazine and read the whole thing. Then make your comments.

Ok, I guess that was a bit of a comment after all.

“Yet the trend is toward skits and rock music in lieu of preaching and teaching.”

I haven’t seen this in the CE churches I’ve attended.

“Certainly, within the last decade there has been a tendency to equate separatist Fundamentalism with the moral failures and dictatorial ecclesiology of the unbiblical Hyles movement.”

In my opinion I think the tendency has been to equate separatist fundamentalism with their practice of separation from good brethren that they consider disobedient.

“Because men with the spirit of Absalom have arisen from within to steal hearts.”

To imply that anyone who implements changes from the accepted fundamentalist cultural norm is an “Absalom” is over the line.

And as to music, the “association” argument doesn’t carry much weight considering that many FBFI churches use the music with impunity and some of our traditional hymns carry some negative associations.

That being said, I respect and appreciate the FBFI and I believe that they have much to add to the conversation today. There’s just nothing on the “sampler” that would make me want to spend my money to eat at the buffet that’s behind closed doors.

A great collaborative response piece would be entitled “The ‘Convergence’ Strikes Back!”

[Jim]

Mark_Smith wrote:

Think what you want. But don’t claim that John Vaughn is not “apt to teach.”

Who claimed this?

I didn’t specifically say that John Vaughn was not apt to teach, but I did say—Wednesday at 10:27 am—that if someone was inordinately clumsy in his rhetoric, one might question whether he was apt to teach. So I think that’s what Mark was getting at.

To spell things out a bit more specifically—hoist myself on my own petard as it were—it’s worth noting that in standard manuals of style, like the AP style my wife learned, and in the style-books of technical writing that I’ve used, or for that matter Strunk & White, one is encouraged to spell out enough specifics in either the first paragraph (AP style) or in an abstract or introduction (technical style) so that the reader can quickly grasp what the writer is going to say. So as Ron notes very recently, you can get far too general in a summary. What, really, does it mean when someone says “Because men with the spirit of Absalom have arisen to steal hearts.”? Maybe people are growing five pounds of beautiful dark curly hair every so often and sharing it with their admirers?

Really, statements like that really don’t tell me much, theologically speaking, and hence I’m feeling like a political debate moderator as I plead get to the point already! If there is a theologically significant reason I ought to retreat (per taxonomy presented by Jim) from “evangelical right” to “historic fundamentalism” or even “hyper fundamentalism”, I am willing to hear the argument. That said, please don’t make me wade through an hour’s worth of boilerplate before you get around to introducing a testable hypothesis.

Here is my quick take from the appetizer Frontline served up:

Yet the trend is toward skits and rock music in lieu of preaching and teaching.

Where? In Andy Stanley’s church? What self-proclaimed fundamentalists are doing this? Most fundamentalist preaching is terrible. MacLachlan wrote this in his book 23 years ago. And I’ve seen it. I know it’s true. So do you.

Many churches are in poor health because they feed on junk food, artificial preservatives, and unnatural substitutes, instead of the milk and meat of the Word

I say many fundamentalist churches are just as bad as the Andy Stanley’s, but for different reasons. There are legions of younger men and women who can testify to this. You know it’s true.

From Bro. Vaughn:

If by “historic” you mean the Fundamentalism that declared itself in 1920, I think there would be general clarity and agreement that it refers to the stand for the fundamentals of the faith against liberalism

It would be nice if fundamentalists would actually, you know … get back to standing against liberalism instead of issuing snide attacks against Bauder and Doran.

Certainly, within the last decade there has been a tendency to equate separatist Fundamentalism with the moral failures and dictatorial ecclesiology of the unbiblical Hyles movement.

Hyles was simply the most virulent strain of the larger infection this entire issue of Frontline seems to personify so well.

Moving past Bro. Vaughn:

We are hearing these words more and more from many who are sorrowfully making the difficult decision to leave a church that was established as Fundamental but has been converging with the philosophy and methods of the New Evangelicalism.

What philosophy and methods are you talking about? Rock music? Northland closed. What else ‘ya got? If you’re not more specific, then I see no need to order the main course.

Watch for those who consider themselves privileged and exempt from the difficulties of separation. Be on guard for those who, for pretense, invest much in advertising their supposed transparency. Be cautious about the one who wears the face of concern to conceal the vice of conspiring, gravitating to “yes-men” while ignoring or avoiding those who disagree with him. And be aware of the man who seems to “talk the talk” but not “walk the walk,” covering his craftiness with what appears to be patience.

Examples? More specific? What on earth are you talking about? Who are you talking about? What does this look like in real life? Where has this happened? This reads like fear-mongering. How dare Frontline send this silliness into the homes of church members, who will go to worship this coming Sunday with narrowed eyes, ready to attack their already over-worked and under-paid Pastors.

In fact, all too frequently, the very mention of “discernment” or “application” is met with the charge of “legalism.” After more than a decade of intense discussion, the subject of applications seems almost to have been silenced.

Who makes charges of legalism? Where? Only a fool thinks a call for personal holiness = legalism. Who are you talking about? Gimmie an example, and tell me if these perpetrators even self-identify as fundamentalists.

However, it is probable that most pastors and churches that have embraced SG music are unaware of or unconcerned with its roots. A brief summary is in order, and it necessarily raises the much-despised argument of associations, but it is important to review

Oh … why? If I beg for mercy, can you please make it stop? I’ve never even listened to SG or Steve Green, and I’ve been weary of this discussion for a long time now.

In the final analysis, the paradox exists in the probable reason that the younger generation is embracing so much of the SG music. Dear reader, simply put, this is another fad. In the same way that giving permission to use Steve Green’s music a generation ago opened the door for stumbling, a new stumbling block is being set before a new generation.

I guess mercy wasn’t granted. Let me be more blunt than I have been:

• I challenge the FBFI to come out and actually criticize Bauder, Doran and MacLachlan openly, instead of being covert about it
• I also challenge the FBFI to understand how irrelevant it already is, and how much further irrelevant it will be in the future if this issue is truly “one of the most important we have ever published.” I have been involved in fundamentalism for 11 years. Not that long, but long enough. I have never met one. single. person. who cared about the FBFI. I have never met one. single. pastor. who cared about the FBFI. Few people my age care about the FBFI. This Frontline issue personifies why. It is a fact. The organization has become irrelevant. You don’t have to be irrelevant. You could start combating liberalism and apostasy, instead of crouching in your ever-shrinking corner and attacking friends. This is sad. Your organization has become the slightly crazed uncle at the family reunion; you know - the one who always rambles on about the same things and tells the same stories? That one. You don’t have to be the crazed uncle. Start combating apostasy. Start writing against modern-day liberalism. Be historic fundamentalists.
• If this appetizer is a fair sampling of the FBFI’s most pressing concerns, then I believe the organization serves no real purpose. Again, it doesn’t have to be this way.

Must dash. I’m late for a “convergence” meeting.