John Vaughn: " Evangelical Fundamentalist Convergence"?

Dave Doran is correct. Fundamentalism (separatist orthodoxy is a good description) is not dead. I see it in practice while not sporting the label but some segments of fundamentalism are dying. One of the reasons is the attitude described by Dave as “confusing itself into thinking it is the sole heir of fundamentalism”. That is best illustrated by the FBFI’s attitude toward groups and people like the IFCA, Bauder, Doran, and MacArthur who are seen as not true separatists. There are others as well such as Foundations Bible College in Dunn, NC, “The Projector” (It’s still around), and others who see themselves as the remnant in these last days.

Regarding Dave’s last paragraph, I’d disagree with the notion that FBFI leaders/participants view themselves as the “sole” heir of fundamentalism, but would agree at least in part that there is a real tragedy within hyperfundamentalism, including at least some portions of the FBFI, of elevating the traditions of man above the Word of God.

An example where I’ll try to stay a little bit away from hot buttons; how often do we hear, when referencing modern music, that a person does not feel that it is “worshipful”? What’s interesting there to me is that not only is music not specifically worship in the Biblical sense (worship referring literally to prostration; music is closer to the notion of “praise”), but in using the modern “definition” of worship as “what we do during church services”, what’s really being said when one says “it doesn’t feel worshipful” is “it does not conform to the musical styles prevalent in the church services I attend and prefer.”

In other words, it’s highly solipsistic, reading our own culture into God’s Word, whether we’re aware of it or not, and both sides of the “music wars” do it.

Noteworthy as well is that wherever this is practiced, it has a deadly affect on the practicioners, and….this is where I get concerned about the practices of those “not in my camp”…it tends to poison peoples’ views of related “camps” as well.

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 to the saints” and to its defense and propagation), so it will not, because God is gracious and powerful, die.

Whatever such beliefs and commitments are called, they must be held 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 often speaks as if it is the sole heir of fundamentalism and partly by elevating the traditions of men above the Word of God.

(BTW, I thought I posted this earlier, didn’t see it, so posted again and ended up with two versions, so I deleted the content of one and then found both were gone. If, somehow, this shows up along with two other versions, this is authorized version.)

How would one distinguish between full-fledged “Convergence” and what some of my FBFI friends have called “contact with men outside our circles”? Certainly, in days past, our predecessors might have had contact with and even admired leading figures of the day without adopting all of their peculiarities and positions. They even had venues where those things were given more attention and priority than they appear to be in our day, at least in the general FBFI “circle” and those who identified closely with it. Fundamentalist leaders of past generations were involved early on in organizations such as the NAE… and even after that was seen as problematic, new organizations and venues were formed to encourage broader interaction (ACCC, various Fundamentalist and Baptist Congresses, and so on).

Is perhaps part of what is contributing to this “Convergence” that the authors find so alarming is that we have failed to have the kind of priority on broader camaraderie that our predecessors seemed to have valued? Oftentimes, the camaraderie many of these so-called “Convergents” are seeking is with people who would frankly applaud and echo the same kind of statements Harding articulates in “The Believer’s Certainty That The Scriptures are The Final Authority for Belief and Behavior.” They aren’t being drawn to the Andy Stanleys or Rick Warrens.
Our Fundamentalist predecessors had more specifically defined parameters for their churches and identities (Baptists and Presbyterians fellowshipped, but went back to serve in their respective churches distinguished by distinctive beliefs), yet were able to encourage and benefit from one another, and even maintain close friendships. One such example: My wife and her family before her grew up at Wealthy Street Baptist Church in Grand Rapids, MI under David Otis Fuller. Fuller was a close friend of J. Gresham Machen, who served as Fuller’s best man at his wedding. Machen wrote a letter of greeting to the fledgling GARBC that emerged out of the ashes of the Baptist Bible Union, published in one of the early editions of the Baptist Bulletin. There was no danger of the GARBC adopting the polity of the PCA or OPC, nor of Machen being associated with Fuller’s dispensational views or use of more revivalist gospel songs. It’s difficult to imagine such a thing happening today in “our circles”–such an attempt might be seen as an inappropriate “Convergence.”

I understand the issues were different back then. I also understand that even then, people took time to arrive at their positions and conclusions. BJ Jr was with the NAE for several years. The aforementioned Fuller was on the board at Wheaton until the 1970s. There are other examples that could be cited.

The point is, I don’t think it’s fair to characterize today’s “Convergents” as being the same as yesterdays “neo-evangelicals” or even being what Barack Obama is to the USA (as Dan Unruh so unhelpfully makes the comparison as he concludes his article “Why I Left My Fundamental Baptist Church”), certainly without at least being more specific than this issue is wont to do. There may be issues for concern amongst these “Convergents,” but it seems to come from those who will not acknowledge the possibility of concerns amongst the ranks of those criticizing… especially when the ones being criticized were often trained and discipled by the ones being critical.

If this is truly meant to be a heartfelt plea and rebuke motivated by love, it might also be wise for things like some acknowledgement of personal fault, some kind of acknowledgement of praise or recognition that those who have “left” that have continued to show some kind of discernment and commitment to maintain their Christian orthodoxy, though perhaps misdirected in the assessment of the ones providing criticism. It is certainly not going to help anything to make accusations of some kind of general conspiracy of “Convergents” taking over separatist churches. As it stands, my concern is that what has been provided in this latest issue that John Vaughn is introducing will have less of a corrective effect and more of a polarizing one.
(NOTE: some of this flows from the response in comment conversation at the post on Proclaim and Defend- http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2016/10/18/convergence-frontline-septo… To this point, the comment that served as the base for this post remains in the moderation queue)

Folks should read this allegory from one of the “Convergent” leaders, Lord Voldemort (sorry, I meant “You Know Who” … that is, I would mean that if I’d actually read the books, because I’m not supposed to … never mind …). This allegory perfectly (prophetically?) illustrates what is going on with the FBFI. After you read the whole thing, I leave it to you to fill in the blanks accordingly:

To many, however, a single chamber was more important than the kingdom. They had spent many years decorating the decayed building materials. Furthermore, they beheld with dismay the men who were leaving. “There is no stench,” said some, “And besides, we like this smell.” “There were no assassins, only great builders, and they are our heroes,” intoned others. Still others objected, “You just want to run the castle.” And still others claimed, “What we really need to do is to build more chambers.”

They began to cast stones at Christopher and at the maintainers of the bright halls. And the stench grew, until it filled parts of the fortress like a noxious Cloud. And it was a Cloud of Untruthing, and its name was INNUENDO, and its method was slander, and in its heart was murder (for whoever assassinates a man’s character assassinates the man), and it multiplied suspicion wherever it drifted. And from the pits of the dungeon, where lay the bodies of the slaughtered, arose great laughter, as the laughter of a dragon.

And the more men ignored the stench, and the more they hurled stones within the fortress, and the more the Cloud cast its shadow, the more the young warriors abandoned the fortress.

[Greg Linscott]

(NOTE: some of this flows from the response in comment conversation at the post on Proclaim and Defend- http://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2016/10/18/convergence-frontline-septoc… To this point, the comment that served as the base for this post remains in the moderation queue)

Sorry, didn’t realize it was there. For some reason I didn’t get notified by the site that a comment was waiting. My apologies.

I figured between your job and general Blue Jay dejectedness that I could give you some time to catch up or grieve…. ;)

Don,

A few quick things. First, I hope you would admit that the FBF Board and the FBF itself are not identical. And, for the record, I don’t even know half of the men on the board. I would venture to say that I know only a quarter of them in a way that I would describe as “personally” (I.e., more than have said hello to each other a few times). That really is irrelevant though.

Second, for some reason I was having a difficult time posting and you’ll notice that there are two versions of my post—with a note on the second one explaining my problem and identifying the second one as the one I intended to post. Don, the portion to which you objected is different in the second one, partly because I concluded that the way I expressed it originally was not helpful. I hope the second version is more acceptable, though I don’t think it will be completely acceptable to you.

Third, and this may be the most germane point, it is hard to not conclude that the FBF is positioning itself as if it is the sole heir when the article which started this discussion questions the fundamentalism of men who disagree with the kinds of things that the magazine addresses. Are those truly the distinctives of fundamentalism? For instance, do not many (if not most) of those other “heirs” of fundamentalism which the FBF recognizes do some of these very things? Perhaps “sole heir” is too prejudicial. Maybe “the purest expression of fundamentalism” in our day would be better. Whatever you label it, there seems to be little doubt that what often comes across (intended or not) is this, “Step outside our circle and you’re leaving fundamentalism.”

Fourth, and my greatest concern, that circle is a mixture of biblical truth and man-made traditions. That’s why—and this is a conjecture—this Frontline edition will drive more men away from the FBF than draw them in. And, sadly, a number of the folks in the FBF will conclude that it is because of the compromising character of those who left. A better option would be to look in the mirror and ask this simple question, “Have we allowed our traditions to become elevated to the place of biblical authority?” It is time, I think, for a genuine reformation that returns to Sola Scriptura.

The FBFI reminds me of a rusting jalopy wheezing it’s way to the junkyard. Its too bad. The jalopy is still quite usable - it could be a beautiful car, the envy of the whole neighborhood. But, the owners have let it rot and decay. Rather than fix and maintain the engine, they’ve busied themselves with shining the chrome bumper and changing air fresheners.

The car is junk because they’ve made it that way. It could be a good car. It should be the best car.

You Know Who has a bit more:

As the defenders began to erect the second story of the fortress, a few of them created private chambers of their own. Such insisted that their chamber was the entire kingdom, and its builder was the King’s anointed. These builders provoked conflicts with the builders of other rooms and chambers. Not infrequently, they would assassinate their rivals within the fortress. Because the bodies were buried carefully in a deep dungeon, no one thought that they would ever be found.

Back in the 1980’s I was involved in a group that was trying to address what they considered problems in the GARBC. At one of those meetings a speaker said that there were three stages in the battle we fight for truth. The first stage is the battle for truth. The second stage is the building of a fortress to protect the truth. Then comes the third stage where people seem to forget the truth and fight to protect the fortress they built.

First, thanks for the reply. In response…

[Dave Doran]

Second, for some reason I was having a difficult time posting and you’ll notice that there are two versions of my post—with a note on the second one explaining my problem and identifying the second one as the one I intended to post. Don, the portion to which you objected is different in the second one, partly because I concluded that the way I expressed it originally was not helpful. I hope the second version is more acceptable, though I don’t think it will be completely acceptable to you.

I did note the change, the second was better, though I would not say it that way either. But we already knew that.

[Dave Doran]

Third, and this may be the most germane point, it is hard to not conclude that the FBF is positioning itself as if it is the sole heir when the article which started this discussion questions the fundamentalism of men who disagree with the kinds of things that the magazine addresses. Are those truly the distinctives of fundamentalism? For instance, do not many (if not most) of those other “heirs” of fundamentalism which the FBF recognizes do some of these very things? Perhaps “sole heir” is too prejudicial. Maybe “the purest expression of fundamentalism” in our day would be better. Whatever you label it, there seems to be little doubt that what often comes across (intended or not) is this, “Step outside our circle and you’re leaving fundamentalism.”

I don’t like the terms “sole heir” or “purest expression.” The FBFI has a general point of view. Granted there are variations among us, we don’t see every issue exactly the same way, but the men involved tend to have a similar philosophy concerning ecclesiastical issues. Consequently, we state what we believe. Do you do any less? One could accuse you of thinking you are the purest expression of fundamentalism also, no?

I guess my problem with the expressions is that evaluating our viewpoint this way seems ad hominem rather than substantive.

[Dave Doran]

Fourth, and my greatest concern, that circle is a mixture of biblical truth and man-made traditions. That’s why—and this is a conjecture—this Frontline edition will drive more men away from the FBF than draw them in. And, sadly, a number of the folks in the FBF will conclude that it is because of the compromising character of those who left. A better option would be to look in the mirror and ask this simple question, “Have we allowed our traditions to become elevated to the place of biblical authority?” It is time, I think, for a genuine reformation that returns to Sola Scriptura.

Well, I don’t speak for all the authors of our articles, but I think it is true that we believe that what we are saying is rooted in the Scriptures. The critics would do better to show us how it is not Scriptural than to scream bigotry, legalism, or charge us as thinking of ourselves as “sole heirs,” etc. The general reaction in this thread and elsewhere only serves to convince me that our position is correct. I am always open to being corrected by the Scriptures.

Don,

just finished our conference, but still squeezing this between some responsibilities, so I need to be quick and brief.

i would not agree that I view what I believe and practice to be the purest expression of fundamentalism simply because I believe that way of looking at it is inherently snared by comparison thinking and fails to account for the diversity of circumstances in which faithful believers and churches are struggling to obey the Word. We are flawed in more ways than we currently see, but I hope that God’s gracious work with continually be purifying us.

My view of applications allows room for differing convictions among God’s people, so the “purest” mindset doesn’t fit within it.

I hope to get a copy of the articles and offer some response to them along the lines of my general criticism. So, I will bow out of this discussion until then.

I paid for my nifty online subscription yesterday afternoon and still have not received access to read these articles.

[Dave Doran]

I hope to get a copy of the articles and offer some response to them along the lines of my general criticism. So, I will bow out of this discussion until then.

I look forward to seeing it. It might be something we could carry on P&D (subject to committee approval - I am not sole arbiter!) and I realize of course you have your own venue for publication, which you might prefer. In any case, I look forward to seeing what you have to say.