John Vaughn: " Evangelical Fundamentalist Convergence"?

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

It is interesting, as I look over the lives / careers of the “triad of evil,” Steve Green after 32 years in the Christian music industry is the only one of the three who still has a rock solid marriage, family, and ministry. His latest release in 2014 was a compilation of — gasp — hymns. Yet, that is not good enough for these fundamentalists. He was an evil CCM artist, used “worldly” music, and was a “stumbling block” to the younger generation.

Suffice it to say, I don’t take seriously men who still impugn Steve Green.

[T Howard]

GregH wrote:

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

It is interesting, as I look over the lives / careers of the “triad of evil,” Steve Green after 32 years in the Christian music industry is the only one of the three who still has a rock solid marriage, family, and ministry. His latest release in 2014 was a compilation of — gasp — hymns. Yet, that is not good enough for these fundamentalists. He was an evil CCM artist, used “worldly” music, and was a “stumbling block” to the younger generation.

This is why fundamentalism is dead. Yes, there are people still members of FBFI, but in the end, as this older generation passes, fundamentalism as we see it will pass away. No one I am aware of in the younger generation is attracted to this view of Christianity. There is a tremendous amount of young people who are focused on the sole authority of Scripture and on living a life for Christ, but not one in view of what fundamentalism as slowly devolved into.

I was recently reviewing Tim Keller’s 6 Principles for How to Argue When You Disagree over on Naselli’s blog. How many of these principles were/are violated by this strain of Fundamentalism as well as us on a regular basis?

1. Take full responsibility for even unwitting misrepresentation of others’ views.
2. Never attribute an opinion to your opponents that they themselves do not own.
3. Take your opponents’ views in their entirety, not selectively.
4. Represent and engage your opponents’ position in its very strongest form, not in a weak “straw man” form.
5. Seek to persuade, not antagonize—but watch your motives!
6. Remember the gospel and stick to criticizing the theology—because only God sees the heart.

Is the content of this series of articles being discussed anywhere else? If so, I’d like to see what the response is by others.

It is interesting to me that the members of Sharper Iron are probably a pretty good sampling of the intended audience for this series, and the discussion above is the response. It seems the articles are not having their intended effect, at least not here.

Why doesn’t FBFI publish the entire series online rather than force a paid subscription, and let it be viewed and discussed freely, if they truly want the content to have impact beyond their membership?

T Howard’s comments reminded me of some of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, which Christians should never use.

• “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.
• “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.
• “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.
• “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.
• “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.
• “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

have a download of Dr. Bauder’s Taxonomy, but do not want to go through the Scribd hassle of another online account. Is there another version available to share somewhere? Unless of course, this is a proprietary publication issue, in which case I am NOT seeking to defraud a brother of earned income. Just checking ~ and any help is appreciated. Jeff

Dean Taylor asked:

Why doesn’t FBFI publish the entire series online rather than force a paid subscription, and let it be viewed and discussed freely, if they truly want the content to have impact beyond their membership?

Many of us would love to see this question answered.

As to discussion, many of us have experienced the difficulty of trying to engage these brethren in discussion. (I’ve been trying for more than 50 years. When I was a teenager my questions labeled me as a rebel. As a young man I was told to defer to my elders.) The FBFI does allow access to their Proclaim and Defend editorial but responses can only be sent by email and are not publicized. They’re winking in the dark.

[Dean Taylor]

Is the content of this series of articles being discussed anywhere else? If so, I’d like to see what the response is by others.

It is interesting to me that the members of Sharper Iron are probably a pretty good sampling of the intended audience for this series, and the discussion above is the response. It seems the articles are not having their intended effect, at least not here.

Why doesn’t FBFI publish the entire series online rather than force a paid subscription, and let it be viewed and discussed freely, if they truly want the content to have impact beyond their membership?

…..in June of this year (and S/I got a mention!):

“The neo-fundamentalist call to the convergence of fundamentalists and evangelicals rang loud and clear from the Zondervan publication Four Views on the Spectrum of Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), a book promoted by the managers of the Sharper Iron website. The neo-fundamentalist tolerance for men who neglect or repudiate separatist convictions has spread to the campuses of former citadels of fundamentalism, like Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary in Lansdale, PA (scheduled to cease academic operations at the end of the 2013-14 academic year) and Northland International University in Dunbar, WI. We are deeply grieved by these developments.”

https://accc4truth.org/2016/06/21/the-danger-of-neo-fundamentalism/

––––––––––––––––-

Going back to December, 2010, Lou Martuneac’s site hashed it out:

http://indefenseofthegospel.blogspot.com/2010/12/convergence-of-fundamentalism-and-non.html

have a download of Dr. Bauder’s Taxonomy, but do not want to go through the Scribd hassle of another online account. Is there another version available to share somewhere? Unless of course, this is a proprietary publication issue, in which case I am NOT seeking to defraud a brother of earned income. Just checking ~ and any help is appreciated. Jeff

Enough.

I will buy the magazine and organize a thoughtful and measured response to the articles by different contributors, article for article. I have no idea what venue these responses will be published in, but I’ll figure this out later (and, no - I’m not hinting at Aaron to offer to host it here). I have my own blog, or can simply start another for this express purpose, if need be.

Please message me if you’re interested in contributing a response to an article from this Frontline piece. Once I determine the level of interest, I’ll move the conversation to email. If there is no interest, then … don’t worry about it!

Count me among those who think that if the issues of separation that FBFI references in their teaser are of great importance to all believers, and that if indeed they believe that refusal to “separate” along the lines they specify will indeed lead believers astray—into sin or even apostasy—then why would they post their 95 Theses in the study of the Wittenberg priests’ residence instead of on the outside of the door?

If the FBFI has arguments for their brand of separation that differ from what I’ve seen before—screeds heavily larded with various genetic fallacies like ad hominem attacks and guilt by association, along with a heavy dose of slippery slope fallacies—I’d love to see them. And for that matter, if it’s just “more of the same”, make it public anyways—at the very least, FBFI contributors will get an “earful” from people who know the difference.

If it’s important, make it public. Nail it to the church door, brother.

If I may opine again, and quite quickly due to some other obligations, it seems better to say that certain institutions and organizations that were associated with fundamentalism are dead, or dying, rather than to say that fundamentalism is dead. I say this for (at least) two reasons:

(1) groups like the FBF represent(ed) only a segment of fundamentalism (something I believe they would acknowledge), so the relative health of any particular group is not the same as fundamentalism; and,

(2) fundamentalism, as an idea and set of biblical convictions, is nothing more, I believe, than separatist orthodoxy (I.e., dual commitments to the faith once delivered and to its defense and propagation), so, because God is gracious and powerful, it will not die.

Whatever such beliefs and commitments are called, they must be held to tightly and taught carefully. I would contend that the FBF no longer does this well (as exemplified by the post that triggered this discussion), partly because it has confused itself into thinking it is the sole heir of fundamentalism and partly by elevating the traditions of men above the Word of God.

I agree with this:

[Dave Doran]

If I may opine again, and quite quickly due to some other obligations, it seems better to say that certain institutions and organizations that were associated with fundamentalism are dead, or dying, rather than to say that fundamentalism is dead. I say this for (at least) two reasons:

(1) groups like the FBF represent(ed) only a segment of fundamentalism (something I believe they would acknowledge), so the relative health of any particular group is not the same as fundamentalism; and,

(2) fundamentalism, as an idea and set of biblical convictions, is nothing more, I believe, than separatist orthodoxy (I.e., dual commitments to the faith once delivered and to its defense and propagation), so, because God is gracious and powerful, it will not die.

Whatever such beliefs and commitments are called, they must be held to tightly and taught carefully.

But not with this:

[Dave Doran] I would contend that the FBF no longer does this well (as exemplified by the post that triggered this discussion), partly because it has confused itself into thinking it is the sole heir of fundamentalism and partly by elevating the traditions of men above the Word of God.

Of course, you might expect that disagreement. I would strongly disagree with the notion that anyone on the FBFI board thinks the FBFI is the sole heir of fundamentalism. To say so is just plain wrong, and Dave, of all people, ought to know better than that. He knows almost everyone on the board personally and I would suspect he doesn’t think that of any of them. How the “FBFI” could think something that none of its leaders think is beyond me.

[Don Johnson] How the “FBFI” could think something that none of its leaders think is beyond me.

An entity can hold a position above and beyond any given member/leader. This is very common in institutions and boards. An entity can evolve beyond what it’s leaders intend and can control. A microcosm of this is being played out in the RNC, even though it doesn’t align exactly with the FBFI situation.

[Dave Doran]

Whatever such beliefs and commitments are called, they must be held to tightly and taught carefully. I would contend that the FBF no longer does this well (as exemplified by the post that triggered this discussion), partly because it has confused itself into thinking it is the sole heir of fundamentalism and partly by elevating the traditions of men above the Word of God.

I would agree that these are important. But I also believe, as do many individuals, that Fundamentalism has become (probably for quite some time) a brand. I think it is this brand and this style that has many rejecting it. The harshness and style of its separation was important at its birth and early to mid-stages. And in light of the secular society as a whole it fit at that time. As society has changed, both religiously and secularly, the style and approach no longer aligns and actually overshadows the real belief and commitments that are important. The core truth should never change and is transcendent of age and time, but the packaging (fundamentalism) should change. The original posting clearly shows that it is rooted in the past and continues to alienate so many Christians, while still trying to hold onto its aging population.