John Vaughn: " Evangelical Fundamentalist Convergence"?

Thanks for the reminder of the benefits of “in class” education. There are a few seminaries in Melbourne where I live that I might need to consider. Some are better than others. But I would still rather do an MDiv online at the moment.

[Bert Perry]

…per Tyler’s comment about a lot of good people coming out of Detroit, Faith, and the like would be a head to head comparison of the good fundamental schools’ products with those of the good evangelical schools like SBTS, Cedarville, TEDS, and Dallas (or others that might be better, I’m just an engineer). Like Tyler, I’ve been impressed with the doctrinal steadiness of many of the fundamental schools, but a lot of fundamentalist “antics” in social issues and such are just depressing.

Not that bomb-throwing, personal attacks, and guilt by association are unique to “us”, but honestly, can’t we do better than this?

Bert,

With degrees from BJ, Calvary, Reformed Theological Seminary, and TEDS and having taken classes at Dallas and Columbia International University I can only give my experience. My training at Fundamentalist schools BJ and Calvary was outstanding in many ways. Reformed and TEDS were likewise excellent. I don’t know much about Faith but do know Central and Detroit somewhat.

My advice to would be to train at a local church centered school for the MDiv like Central or Detroit if possible and I would recommend these schools even as a non-fundamentalist because of the grounding that takes place. After that, sure go to an evangelical school especially for doctoral work. It’s a good idea to spread it out. My intention was not to receive more than one degree from the same school. From BJ I received interdenominational Fundamentalism, from Calvary independent Baptist Fundamentalism, from Reformed, Presbyterian reformed theology, from Trinity solid conservative evangelicalism. How I turned out is another story.

Steve

Tyler, may I ask why you give such a sterling a commendation?

My comments are geared towards the Seminary, not the undergrad program (which I have no idea about). I give my recommendation because:

• All the faculty have earned doctorates from institutions other than Maranatha - that is, they’re not incestuous
• The faculty are actually allowed to have their own views and opinions on certain issues and (gasp) … actually disagree with one another about certain things.
• The school is fundamental in an intelligent way, majoring on principles instead of rote conformity to external standards. The history of fundamentalism is a required course.
• They teach and educate. They don’t indoctrinate. In Greek, for example, some people are TR, others MT, and still others CT. It doesn’t matter. You aren’t attacked or scalped for not towing “the line.”
• They are very, very strong on languages. They require 2.5 years of Greek and 2 of Hebrew. This is increasingly unusual in this day and age.
• They teach a balanced and intelligent form of separatism. Dr. Oats is particularly helpful in this regard.
• They teach an intelligent, informed view of Baptst history and ecclesiology. In this day and age when “church” seems to be increasingly seen as a place to “hang out,” they emphasize ecclesiology and worship as it ought to be emphasized.
• They force you to read folks you disagree with in the systematic theology courses.
• They’re fully accreddited
• You can do your MDiv virtually
• They’re amazing

Behold their commitment standards here on the usual hot-button issues in our circles. I could go on, but you get the idea. It is a very good school. It is the best school.

You have given me some compelling reasons, thanks.

Robert,
I have completed a M Min from BBS Clarks Summit, and am getting ready to enter into the DMin program there. They do have an online MDiv, and have a nice Training Timothys scholarship matching fund program if your church contributes to your seminary education.
My experience is if you are well-grounded in your principles, some of the methodological differences you might encounter in your fellow students and professors are actually helpful in solidifying your own convictions. BBS is going to be very doctrinally sound and comparable to what you would get at some of the other institutions mentioned, but will also expose you to some different methods and practices than you typically get in the streams of Fundamentalism typically reflected here at SI. Donald Ellsworth, who teaches required courses on Worship, was actually very excited and receptive to contributions I made as a conservative influence within the class. Mike Stallard was one of the best reasons to take classes at BBS. The way he taught dispensational hermeneutics was invaluable. However, he is now serving with Friends of Israel.
I will also say that having taken in-person module as well as online classes, my experience is that I have actually tended to develop better relationships and interaction during the course of the online class over several weeks with both students and instructors than in an in-person compressed-into-a-week module lecture, for whatever it’s worth. I keep up with several of my online classmates in ways I didn’t and don’t with module classmates.
I would say that BBS is worth a look. https://www.clarkssummitu.edu/seminary/future-seminary-students/

Thanks Greg, yes BBS is my radar.

I have really enjoyed BJU so far and the quality/experience of online-ed has exceeded my initial expectations. All the best with your D.Min. That is terrific!

Commentary on Daniel by Stevens, an OT guy from BJU (not sure of first name). It was very good, and stood on its own with Leon Wood’s commentary (both are OT guys).

That’s all I can remember I ever used right now from self-identified fundamentalists.

Jim, your question isn’t necessarily bad. At the same time, would we ask the same question about how many Baptists vs. E-Free or Presbyterians?
I think your question is helpful, but it isn’t necessarily conclusive in considering the matters at hand. We can also look at things like how many church planting missionaries on the field, for example.

About 25 years back, my pastor noted to me that he was unaware of any good Biblical or systematic theologies from the evangelical (which I presume would include fundamental) camp—the reason he gave was that “fundagelicals” were too busy doing ministry to do that level of scholarly work. He then earned his Ph.D. in philosophy to help remedy some of that problem and went to Biola and Talbot.

Haven’t read any of his work since then, so I can’t comment, but at least one work does claim to work against “accomodation”. My feeling, judging by Kevin Bauder’s comments upon becoming a scholar at large, is that fundamentalists are somewhat behind evangelicals in coming up to speed on the need to do scholarly work in this area.

Those of us who have the opportunity to go to a Shepherd’s Conference or T4G have come home with suitcases full of good, practical books which have helped our ministry. Where are the fundamentalist writers? Look at us stirring up a whirlwind over articles written in a magazine that few people have heard of or will ever read.

My first exposure to CE books came 35 years ago when John MacArthur was giving his books away. I received great benefit from those works. I also remember the day when my senior pastor told me to take them out of my office in the church because MacArthur was “an apostate”.

[Dean Taylor]

During my 12-year pastorate at Calvary Baptist Church in Simpsonville, SC, the following happened:

During a congregational Q&A session that was part of my candidating process in 2003, I was asked, “If you become our pastor, will you always use the King James Version of the Bible?” My answer was that I currently (then) used that version for preaching and teaching, occasionally referring to other translations, and that I had no plans to change, but would not say that I would never change. About 5 years into my pastorate there, I had thoughts of changing to a current English translation for preaching and teaching. I did not bring it up to anyone at first. During a deacon meeting, a deacon who was a long-time member of the church asked, “Would you ever consider changing to a modern translation?” That started a year-long discussion and ensuing steps of 1) teaching our people about the Bible’s inspiration, preservation, and translation; 2) considering making a change and eventually 3) opening up the use of current English translations in our church including the NKJV for preaching and teaching.

A few years later I taught a series called Renewing Biblical Christianity. The driving theme was that the people of each generation must hear, understand, and apply truth for themselves. Pastors and parents cannot merely pass down their own applications, especially in areas where the Bible is not specific. We must help each new generation of younger people and of new believers understand truth and apply it for themselves. Our practices and traditions cannot be their primary guide. I stated that among the members of our church, there would be differing applications, especially regarding lifestyle issues where the Bible is not specific (e.g., music, dress, school choice, etc., etc.) and that is not a bad thing. And there is no uniform for church (e.g., coats and ties for men, dresses or skirts for women). The Bible doesn’t say that you should “wear your best for God” to church on Sunday. In fact, it’s better to not be showy or display wealth by dress that makes community people who walk in on Sunday feel totally out of place. We encouraged women to feel free to wear slacks if they were comfortable doing so. I stopped wearing a tie on Sunday nights (!). I also made the point that within the church family (as well as the greater Christian community) we should show respect and recognize Christian liberty in musical choices. We will have differing applications among church families, and that is ok. The series didn’t emphasize dress or music, but we definitely made applications to these areas since they are high on the list of areas where Christians differ and where many follow tradition rather than truth. (People still thank me for this series.)

I developed and taught a philosophy of musical worship called Worship On Purpose. I believed and shared that we should be thoughtful and engaging in the way we worshipped together on the Lord’s Day. In addition to being purposeful, I wanted to arrive at a good, current, Bibically-based rather than tradition-based position and practice of music. We began using some modern hymns, including selections from Sovereign Grace, Getty, Townend, and other contemporary musicians. We eventually introduced the use of an acoustic guitar, a cajon (occasionally), a small ensemble leading with their voices (frequently though not every service) with our congregational singing, and all lyrics projected onto a screen. Here is part of the statement I wrote and we followed:

A blend of old and new music - We selectively use music from various sources. Our use does not indicate support of everything the source (composer, publisher, or musician) does or represents, or the style in which it might have originated or in which it is presented by others.

Style that is both conservative and current - By “conservative” we mean driven by truth and values rather than trends and a marketing mentality. We are not quick to change for change’s sake, and if we change anything, there is a reason for it that arises out of biblical truth or values that are based on Scripture. We do not use a rock-and-roll style of music in our church gatherings. By “current” we mean not anachronistic, frozen in a past culture, or stale. We mean fresh, intentional, and considerate of the community, culture and time in which we minister.

Common ground - When we come together as a church family, we unite our hearts and voices in praise to our one Savior. We endeavor to use music in our church gatherings that builds up and unifies, not music that produces conflict or division. We avoid music that may appeal to a subset of the congregation while alienating others.

I was not “unaware” nor was I “unconcerned” (see Frontline article) with the roots of SG and Getty/Townend music. We were very aware and chose to be selective. I taught our people to use discernment rather than be governed by categories (CCM vs. traditional) with music as well as other issues. I determined that association, by itself, was not a reason to keep our church from benefiting from solid music being embraced by the larger church of Jesus Christ in our day.

Many, many people welcomed these changes. Some were opposed, and some left the church. One member who is well-known and influential in Fundamentalism decided to leave our church, and I asked him for a biblical reason for his action. His only Bible response was to quote Amos 3:3, Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Another individual who had served in various leadership capacities and was at that time the teacher of a large class came to my office on a Tuesday to inform me that he and his wife were leaving and would not be at church the following Sunday. He was leaving his class without even a goodbye. He told me, “I’m IFB and you’re on a Conservative Evangelical trajectory.” I was able to talk him into at least going to his class for one more Sunday to tell them he would no longer be teaching and give them a chance to say their farewells. Some churches in the Greenville area known for being very traditional welcomed with open arms the migrants from Calvary and other churches that were “changing.”

I can honestly say I did not have a hidden agenda to “go contemporary,” become a Conservative Evangelical, or follow any fad. As the lead shepherd of the church, an elder of the church, and the overseer of it, I studied the Word, evaluated the life of our church, and preached, taught, and led as I believed best. My goal was to fulfill Ephesians 4:11-16, which includes this aim of church growth: till we all come … to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Occasionally someone would ask the question, “Where are we going?” I answered with those words – “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ!” I preached more than one message on this goal for the church. The church should, yes, must be changing!!! Jesus’ fullness includes grace and truth (John 1:14,17). Are we “progressive?” Yes! We must be progressing toward being characterized by grace and truth! And that means we must eschew traditionalism and embrace appropriate change, both individually and in the life of the church.

I could share more examples from my experience as a pastor, but I’ll move to where I am now. By God’s grace, I serve as Professor of Pastoral Training and Chair of the Ministries Division at Faith Baptist Bible College. My previous role as a pastor and current position in a college make me, I guess, one of the “ministry leaders” addressed in the Frontline articles. Thankfully, where I serve, Bible translations are not an issue. We are free to use any solid English translation. The most commonly used are NKJV, ESV, and HCSB. The school has a clear position and practice of music that is very conservative. But students and faculty can attend the Baptist church of their choice, whether or not the culture of the church exactly fits that of the school. We have faculty members who participate in the Evangelical Theological Society. The associations of this school are broader in some areas and narrower in other areas than what I’ve experienced in my past ministries.

I dropped my membership in the FBFI several years ago, after the Calvinism fiasco and a few other disturbing occurrences. I just did not want my name in a directory of people who were identified with that. Dr. John Vaughn is a very gracious individual. I had the privilege of touring Israel with him a few years ago. I respect and appreciate him as a person. I have other good friends who participate in the FBFI. But I can’t identify with the organization and all that it represents. I shared with one ministry friend that I feel more at home at Shepherd’s Conference than I do at an FBF meeting. I have a lot of respect and have benefited much from the teaching and ministry emphases of MacArthur, Mohler, Dever, Begg, Larson, et al. I am not a Conservative Evangelical, nor am I becoming one. But I appreciate and learn from certain of them.

I look at the characteristics of Convergence stated in the Proclaim and Defend posts, and I see some that might describe me. Other characteristics may be assumptions that observers would make about me without knowing all the facts. And several don’t fit me at all.

I don’t find labels helpful to this kind of discussion. Neither does it help to evaluate men, ministries, and movements according to extra-biblical criteria, label them, and make pronouncements about them. I have yet to read the full Frontline articles. I think the library here at Faith subscribes, so I won’t have to pay to read them. I’ll see if the complete articles help me know if I’m a Convergent or not, and what, if anything, that means for me.

As someone who benefited greatly from the teaching ministries of Dr. Bob and Dr. Turk, I am encouraged that it seems the pastoral ministries dept. at Faith is in good hands!

Jim,

Writing takes time and costs money. What fundamentalist institution has time and money to offer professors the time to write? If you are teaching 2-3 classes per semester (or in the case of when I was at NL, some professors were teaching more credits than I was taking, and I was a bit nuts on the credit load) or more, who has time to write commentaries or other books?

Macarthur uses ministry people/ghost writers for his books. He also has the money (makes minimum of 400k per year according to Guidestar) and the time to write. What fundamentalist does?

Piper was given regular sabbaticals to write. Carson takes regular sabbaticals from teaching to write (plus full time research assistants). Koestenberger takes sabbaticals and only writes during his free time.