John Vaughn: " Evangelical Fundamentalist Convergence"?

Mike Harding wrote - “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. Consequently, a worldwide spiritual famine has resulted from the absence of any genuine proclamation of the Word of God (Amos 8:11)—an absence that continues to run wild and unabated. Unless there is a serious correction, the NT Church of the Lord Jesus Christ will suffer increasingly from hazy preaching, muddled heads, fretful hearts, and paralyzing uncertainty.”

Brother Harding uses Amos 8:11 to ascribe the paucity of teaching of God’s Word in the world. I do not believe this is a judicious use of this portion of Scripture.

First, the Lord is talking about a judgment on Israel, and in particular, the northern tribes. This particular chapter of scripture does not record any other nation receiving this judgment. I believe any discussion of when and where this judgment is, has been, or will take place must center around Israel. Brother Harding’s argument does not.

Second, the presence of the famine as described in Amos 8:11 is qualified by the activities in Amos 8:12-13. Does this really describe the activity in the world at this time? Are people running around from coast to coast looking for teaching and God’s Word and not finding it? I think the answer is obviously no. The Word of God has never been more publicly available, and teaching and preaching recordings and resources are plentiful.

I don’t begrudge Brother Harding that the U.S. is at a time of relative Biblical illiteracy, and that there are dire consequence for society when God’s Word is not honored or practice.

However, misuse of Scripture is a very major error whose effects rival that of Biblical illiteracy. My hope is that Christians of all persuasions will use Scripture accurately. My fear is that it is not being done here. Misusing scripture is the highest betrayal of fundamentalists if they concurrently stand on biblical inerrancy and sound teaching. It destroys the credibility of any subsequent argument that is made from it, and eventually, the credibility of the teacher.

I am open to carefully expounded biblical reasons why churches are in poor health. That God is judging the church because of Amos 8:11 is not one of them.

I remember when the FBF proudly “named names” and all had MA’s (Mark and Avoid) as they called out compromisers and apostates. Now they seem to content to warn us against a nameless enemy. I’ve seen this before and it sometimes breeds a fear of anyone or anything that doesn’t live in “The Village”. I know. I lived in there for many years. I went back recently and was told that the SBC was an apostate denomination, that MacArthur still denied the blood, and Bob Jones University had fallen into full fledged compromise. (BTW, they subscribe to Frontline.)

[TylerR]

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.

I haven’t read your whole post, but I do want respond to this remark.

From what you say, it is quite obvious you haven’t read the whole magazine, and neither, I would say, have any of the commentators on this thread. It appears to me that you all are tilting against windmills or phantoms. You would do better to read the whole magazine instead of debating your impression of snippets.

As to Bauder and Doran, it is unfortunate that they are being dragged into this as if they are the objects of criticism. I get that they were mentioned in Ben Wright’s article, but the magazine isn’t a response to Ben Wright’s article. The only connection is the lifting of a term from his article. I think the term is fairly apt for describing what we are criticizing, but we are not attacking Bauder and Doran. I would say that Ben Wright was perhaps optimistic in his expectations as to the direction Bauder and Doran were headed.

In any case, if you ACTUALLY read the articles in the magazine, you will be able to talk more intelligently about what we are talking about. If you would rather continue to fight with phantoms, then just carry on.

The appetizers and teasers your organization has served up don’t point to anything but more of the same wagon circling. Even Bro. Doran himself has taken offense. Whatever you’re trying to get across, you’re failing. Why should I buy your magazine when all your efforts to clarify have produced more alleged confusion?

The $12.00 you’re charging will buy me a nice dinner at a nearby Mexican restaurant. I’d rather have chips and salsa than read about “hidden agendas.” If I want wagon-circling, I’d rather watch John Wayne do it than the FBFI.

I re-read the initial teaser editorial and here is the relevant excerpt:

In early 2010 an article by Ben Wright appeared on the 9marks.org website titled, “An Evangelical Fundamentalist Convergence?” Pastor Wright saw hope in such a convergence, but we use it here with little optimism. After all, “convergence” is the antonym of separation. The antonym is needed now to avoid the confusion resulting from the lack of a clear term when striving to understand what is likely a new movement. For example, some just call the Convergents “Calvinists,” as if their recent identification with Calvinism were the root of all choices that separatists find objectionable. Others use the unhelpful phrase “these young guys,” as though younger Convergents consistently move away from separatism just because they are young.

Nevertheless, something is going on—something that looks very much like the self-styled “Neo- Evangelicalism” of sixty years ago; something that in its efforts to engage the culture seems to be, again, embracing the culture. Therein lies the danger of the pursuit of relevance as an end in itself. In seeking to stay in touch with the ever-changing culture, churches can think themselves separate from it while moving away from their moorings. They can soon occupy the space that belonged to the world not long ago, no longer secure on the foundations on which they were built.

This issue of FrontLine offers an appeal for wisdom, discernment, and caution in this regard.

This issue is about the “convergence.” This is what the teaser states. What is the antecedent of “something” in the second paragraph, above? It must be the “new movement” mentioned in the previous paragraph. That “new movement” is the convergence Bro. Vaughn finds “little optimism” in. The convergence Ben Wright wrote about involves Bauder and Doran; more specifically, their call for sanity in fundamentalism.

Either (a) this issue of Frontline is actually about this “convergence” that Bro. Wright wrote about, or (b) Bro. Vaughn wrote a terrible editorial.

Tyler, aren’t you supposed to be at a convergence meeting or something? :^)

To the point, I’m with Tyler and Ron regarding whether I’m willing to pay the $12 or whatever for the subscription. Again, the format of the “teasers”, being IMO overly general, suggests a rhetorical technique of “wasting peoples’ time”, and more importantly, if “Tyler’s convergence meetings” are truly doing things that impact the Gospel (eg. infringements on the Fundamentals, Solas), or otherwise contradict Biblical morality or ecclesiology, why would one put it behind the firewall? To draw on something I’m celebrating in 11 days, Luther posted his theses on the Wittenberg church door, no?

Again, dear brother, Strunk & White, Solas, Fundamentals.

The convergence meeting got out early. We decided we’ll spend our time responding to:

1. a recent scholarly tome by a Fuller NT prof who denies Jesus’ divinity
2. preparing a study guide based on an exegesis of Romans 1, specifically tailored to combat common LGBT “Christian” arguments from Matthew Vines’ book. It will be geared towards Christian teens.
3. writing discipleship study guides for new believers based on historic Baptist confessions of faith and catechisms
4. writing and teaching a series on the Trinity in our local churches

We decided to leave SG music and sinister “hidden agendas” to the heavy hitters at the FBFI. We stay in our lane, with the minor stuff.

And didn’t Luther nail his 95 Theses to the “outside” of the church door at Wittenburg?

I’m certainly glad he didn’t charge people an admission fee to come in and read them.

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.

Sorry, but they lost me at the mention of Steve Green.

What, nothing said about Sandy Patti or Amy Grant? These three were the triad of evil back in the day (i.e. the 80s). They led millions of Christian teenagers into compromise, loose living, and devil worship … or so I was told.

[T Howard]

Quote:

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.

Sorry, but they lost me at the mention of Steve Green.

What, nothing said about Sandy Patti or Amy Grant? These three were the triad of evil back in the day (i.e. the 80s). They led millions of Christian teenagers into compromise, loose living, and devil worship … or so I was told.

I understand that Steve Green cassette tapes are still available for evaluation :) (By the way, as an aside, I was at a fundamental Baptist convention three years ago and there was a guy selling 8-tracks at his exhibit booth.)

Seriously, it is laughable. With all the water under the bridge, Steve Green is still on the radar?

SG refers to the music of Sovereign Grace Ministries, not Steve Green or even the “Michael Schenker Group”, right?

Per Jim’s note, I’m willing to let a lot of hyperfundamental bygones be bygones, , except to remember that these are the excesses we’re prone to. Let’s look at ourselves as we are now, let history simply give us a hint as to why.

[Bert Perry]

SG refers to the music of Sovereign Grace Ministries, not Steve Green or even the “Michael Schenker Group”, right?

You might want to reread. Steve Green was mentioned.

I must confess I was amused by one of John Vaughn’s opening salvos - “After all, “convergence” is the antonym of separation.” Actually it is one of many antonyms which include “diverge,” “disconnect,” “disagree,” “differ.” There are also synonyms for converge - “assemble,” “focus,” “combine,” “concur,” “rally,” “unite.” Find the antonym you want and use it to serve your purpose. It’s like a lot of preaching. You know what you want to say but need to find a text to support it. I find as much support for “converge” in Scripture than I do for “diverge.” There’s a time for both.

Our church belongs to Converge, former Swedish Baptist General Conference then just BGC. I think converge is a good thing when done with believers committed to the authority of Scripture and the fundamentals of the faith. I’m sure I would diverge from some things that some believers hold to or practice in some Converge churches. I have never found an association of churches with which I could agree in every point with everyone. That is the beauty of convergence. We hold to the non-negotiables of the Christian faith. We hold with conviction and humility those things on which we disagree.

[GregH]

Bert Perry wrote:

SG refers to the music of Sovereign Grace Ministries, not Steve Green or even the “Michael Schenker Group”, right?

You might want to reread. Steve Green was mentioned.

Sigh. Point well taken. There are many things I don’t like about CCM—we’ll leave the specifics for later—but suffice it to say I’ve never heard of someone listening to Steve Green, and then going down to the local biker bar to listen to the Crue and get plastered or something.