John Vaughn: " Evangelical Fundamentalist Convergence"?

[TylerR]

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

Is that meant to be snarky? It sounds that way from here. If yes, is that edifying or necessary at all?

Don,

There is nothing edifying at all in:

• Publishing an issue which you claim is “the most important” you have ever done
• Publishing teaser excerpts which have done nothing but produce outrage and bewilderment from those you seek to influence, and wound the leaders of this alleged so-called “movement” you fear so much
• Accuse this “convergence movement” of plotting and executing “hidden agendas”
• Compare younger Pastors who aren’t like you to “Absalom” who, let me remind everybody, slept with all his father’s concubines and rebelled against God’s appointed King and, therefore, against God Himself.
• Then have the nerve to invite a man your organization implicitly hit over the head with a metaphorical sledgehammer to write a response on P&D - “subject to committee approval.”
• Then force people to pay money to your organization if they want to respond or even read these articles
• Then have 24 hours lapse without any acknowledgement of a paid subscription beyond a charge on my bank account - which was promptly processed by PayPal.

I lost the willingness (not the ability) to tap-dance politely around important issues a long time ago. My comments are not meant to be rude - they’re meant to be blunt and to the point. It saves time.

If these articles are indeed as important as you say, then they should have been posted openly. I’m waiting to read them. I want to read them. I’ll probably even agree with a lot of it. You have my money. I await the articles.

Don, it’s a good question. You’re claiming that “convergence” between historic fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals presents a huge risk—people might even listen to Steve Green’s 8 tracks or something—and it’s behind a paid firewall? Seriously? Again, what about the proverbial Wittenberg Schlosskirche door?

I borrowed this quote from one of Don’s comments on P & D. It leaves me puzzled.

“As far as the Convergents are concerned, there clearly is a desire on the part of some to adopt some evangelical philosophies while also attempting to retain the fundamentalist label. I think that is the point of the criticism.”

We probably live in different ministry worlds but who are the “some” actually doing this? I don’t know of anyone retaining the “fundamentalist label” while adopting evangelical philosophies. Most of the men I meet in my circles of ministry have never been fundamentalists. Those who have identified with Fundamentalism in the past and have adopted whatever may be meant by “evangelical philosophies” don’t want to retain the label. I consider myself a “former fundamentalist” and even wrote a couple articles for Frontline years ago before going over to the convergent side. I don’t know any young fundamentalists, although I hear there are some, but fewer and fewer men want the label. So where’s the problem? I may need to follow Tyler’s lead and cough up $15 for a subscription.

24 hours since money was paid. No subscription. It is now close of business. I will provide an update here every 24 hours so the rest of the world can plan their own subscription purchase accordingly.

This is from P&D’s comment section, specifically Don Johnson writing to Greg Linscott:

You have been following my articles connected with the book Baptist Fundamentals I know, and the issues the fundamentalists faced then were similar politically in that there were conservative moderates who would join with them in a rally for truth but vote against them when it came to crunch time in the convention. They howled when the fundamentalists spoke too harshly (in their view), just as the convergents do today.

I am thinking about an article on this phenomenon, it can be observed in secular politics as well. Moderates are not reliable allies for truth speakers.

The gauntlet has been thrown down, I see. “Convergents” are the same as the spineless and feckless moderates who refused to stand for the Gospel during the Northern Baptist Convention battles in the early part of last century. That is quite a charge. Is Bro. Johnson comparing Bauder, Doran and the legions of younger men who do not agree with the FBFI to modern-day Massee’s?

Speak plainly, Bro. Johnson. The moderates are waiting with bated breath …

I don’t think there will be much profit in an online discussion, but I’ll buy you a coffee one of these days when I can get over to the mainland and we can get to know one another.

Yes, The Projector is still mailed out. They’ve even archived all of the old issues. I encourage everyone to go and read some from the 1970s. They are ridiculous. A dear friend of mine, now with the Lord, wrote that Warren Wiersbe was dangerous.

http://www.theprojector.org

Convergents are not the same as theological moderates in the vein of those who compromised with the theological liberals in the old days. This article, and Don by his refusal to answer Tyler, implies if not declares that they are.

Reckless claims like this do not help you retain men in your fellowship, recruit new members, or increase subscriptions. THE FBFI does have something to contribute to the Body of Christ but cutting off the legs of those who disagree with you will not make you taller.

BTW, in case you missed it, I think those convergents did some good work in cleaning up the SBC seminaries. (And they said it couldn’t be done.) Where is my “SBC: A House Built on Sand” book?

…Canadian?
Not Don Johnson, saying things like “Moderates are not reliable allies for truth speakers.”
;)
But on a more serious note, I think Don’s statement cannot be a good rule of thumb. At some point, there is going to be a “far right” as well as a far left. Don talks about politics, for example. One may want to oppose the Democrats, for example… but that doesn’t mean it is a good idea to embrace the conspiracy theorists, birthers, and Neo-Nazis just because they are sometimes “truth speakers.”
Don may want to characterize and criticize the “moderates,” but there does have to be a balance between consistency in principle and having enough room to be able to “work well with others.” Even in Christianity/Christendom, there are people like the Amish, or the plethora of Lutheran (in Marshall, a town of around 13,000, we have Missouri, Wisconsin, LCMC, and 2 ELCA, with an ELS in the next town over…) or Presbyterian synods… How effective is it to be a “truth speaker” if you have no one to speak to? I understand you can go too far the other way, too… but my point here is that there is such a thing as being too far right. It’s not always just about principle… sometimes you also have to think about demeanor.
Hey, taking a cue from the political landscape… if some of us are going to get labeled “Convergents,” I suppose that could make those labeling the “alt right” of Fundamentalism. Alt-Fundamentalists, perhaps? Don Johnson as Breitbart? Dan Unruh as Alex Jones/Info Wars? :D

I’m needling a little here. Don and I haven’t always seen eye to eye, and I don’t think we do here, but I do count Don as a friend, and I think Don does with me, too (or at least he did).

L to R- Matt Recker, Greg Linscott, Don Johnson at “The Gospel Proclaimed,” March 2016

How time flies! Eight years ago I wrote an article in SI on Fundamentalism. It’s interesting to me that I could write the same article today with few exceptions. It may not be helpful to anyone else but it is helpful to me to look back at what I was thinking at the time. Here are some excerpts: http://sharperiron.org/article/fundamentalism-21st-century-opinion

“Fundamentalism’s commitment to the authority of Scripture often attaches itself to interpretations and positions on issues to which scriptural authority cannot be legitimately attached.”

“Fundamentalism is faced with serious challenges to its existence, and the viability of movements within Fundamentalism in the twenty-first century is in question. Some have suggested re-branding or repackaging Fundamentalism to make it gentler or more authentic. Others have proposed substantive change or a cosmetic makeover with a name change.”

“I do not think that Fundamentalism as a movement or movements is dead. I think it is mostly ignored, has made itself irrelevant, clings to anachronisms, and will persist in some forms among some believers and in some geographic regions for reasons that go beyond my intent here.”

“What I write is not meant to be a blanket criticism of Fundamentalism or a blanket endorsement of Evangelicalism. I do not question the legitimacy of Fundamentalism as a valid yet not exclusive expression of the Christian faith. Anyone looking for greener grass in Evangelicalism will be disappointed.”

“My sense of where we are heading may be completely wrong and distorted, and I lay no special claim to objectivity. For many in Fundamentalism today, especially younger men, the ideas and strengths of Fundamentalism will find expression in other movements, but the outmoded label and extra-biblical trappings will be dropped.”

“I have—or hope to have—fundamentalist friends who, while not sharing all of my concerns and criticisms, share a bond in Christ that is stronger than our differences. But I will not allow a movement to define me and to choose my battles. The Word stands above every movement and every culture in every time and in all places. To that sacred and timeless Word and to its Author we must yield and give our allegiance.”

I was not raised in a fundamentalist church. The fundamental Baptist church that I attended was healthy with love and respect for all (and somehow, the pastor an FBFI man! And a BJU grad to boot! How can that be?).

So help me out. This is a serious question, since I do not know what you are referring to.

1- What is meant when one of you have referred to “extra-biblical trappings” and others implied it? Can you give me 3 examples (If one of them refers to Hyles and his minions… skip that. I couldn’t care less about him).

2-When was it ever to be the goal of a Christian to be “relevant” to the culture around us and to the larger “squishy” Christian community?

Mark

[Mark_Smith]

1- What is meant when one of you have referred to “extra-biblical trappings” and others implied it? Can you give me 3 examples (If one of them refers to Hyles and his minions… skip that. I couldn’t care less about him).

I imagine what is being referred to there is mostly related to song selections (singing Getty songs with traditional instrumentation, for example). Other example might include instrumentation changes or changes in how songs are led (team vs. song leader), power point vs hymnals, that kind of thing.
Similar concerns might be changing up Sunday evening services for small groups or other things, walk the aisle invitations, what we do with VBS and similar methods…

The alcohol issue is addressed in the Frontline issue. No one advocates for drunkenness, but some have allowed for consumption in moderation, which is aa controversy. I would not advocate for that, but would not say that alone makes someone unorthodox.

When was it ever to be the goal of a Christian to be “relevant” to the culture around us and to the larger “squishy” Christian community?

I don’t think the question as framed is exactly neutral and sincere, but I will try to be in my response. :D

Sometimes we can go too far in attempting to be trendy, sure. At the same time, there is nothing especially virtuous or sinful in using the technology of the day, making adjustments to the language people use and speak, adopting the dress people in society wear instead of retaining customs of the past, or re-thinking the meeting times of the gathered church to best serve the needs of the people, especially when the Scriptures do not provide explicit instructions as to how to do those things.
As far as the “larger ‘squishy’ Christian community” goes, well, sure we could each be an island unto ourselves… come up with our own English translations from ancient manuscripts, copy them by hand until we get big enough to purchase our own printing press, and so on… :D But of course that’s ridiculous. We do all have some degree of interaction with larger Christendom. Of course we do. The question then becomes to what extent?
I think some of what we have to wrestle with here is not who is in our formally organized pastors’ group, even though that might appear to be what is the current matter at hand. What we really should be thinking about is how does the way we answer these questions affect missionaries we support? If someone from our church is sent to plant a church in another location and ends up having a contrasting approach to the mother congregation, how much difference is acceptable before the planter is unceremoniously cut off financially? If one of your children grows up and marries someone from a church with contrasting methods from yours, are you going to pray for your child, in-laws and grandchildren to repent and be genuinely converted, or are you going to rejoice that Christ is preached?
That last paragraph isn’t meant as an exhaustive list, but to lend some perspective through illustration. Mark,I would argue, even as one who has tended to retain traditional methods as much as anyone in my generation, that we have to lend a measure of grace to allow others to settle into their convictions. There are doctrinal Fundamentals that provide our boundaries that are non-negotiable… but we put a lot of extra things alongside of them that simply aren’t as absolute as we might like them to be. There are differences that require clear separation, and there are others that can be discussed and considered among friends and brothers, where we can walk away with those differences still existing. The question is “how much agreement must there be to have that relationship?” The answer has to consider “how close is that relationship?”

[Mark_Smith]

I was not raised in a fundamentalist church. The fundamental Baptist church that I attended was healthy with love and respect for all (and somehow, the pastor an FBFI man! And a BJU grad to boot! How can that be?).

So help me out. This is a serious question, since I do not know what you are referring to.

1- What is meant when one of you have referred to “extra-biblical trappings” and others implied it? Can you give me 3 examples (If one of them refers to Hyles and his minions… skip that. I couldn’t care less about him).

2-When was it ever to be the goal of a Christian to be “relevant” to the culture around us and to the larger “squishy” Christian community?

Mark

Hi Mark,

I took your questions as being serious. Greg took a swing and hit a home run. I think he articulated many of the things that I might’ve said. I didn’t mean relevant in the sense of chasing relevancy or pandering to culture or any squishy Christian community. It was more the sense beating the same old dead issue horses and a negativity that overshadowed the gospel . It was majoring on the minors and taking separation to extremes where agreement was demanded for fellowship in areas where Christians can disagree and still fellowship.

Much of it comes down to how we understand separation and unity in Scripture. For example, I rarely think Christians should separate over music used by other Bible-believing Christians. I wouldn’t say never but the parameters in FBF Fundamentalism are drawn far too tightly for me as I understand Scripture. I don’t pay too much attention to what music other churches use. I could and have spoken in places where I didn’t care for the music. I might not want a steady diet of that in the church where I’m a member but I won’t separate over it.

Also, I don’t separate from brothers in Christ who hold to what I believe is a biblical view on drinking wine. Old Testament believers did. New Testament believers did. Christians throughout the centuries did. Whether believers today should drink wine is a question of wisdom and personal liberty. To abstain is a choice, a good one for many. To encourage others to drink wine is foolish. To warn against drunkenness heeds Scripture.To prohibit it to others who drink in moderation or call it sin goes beyond Scripture. No one is ignorant of the consequences of the abuse of alcohol and other substances or activities (i.e., food, sex). We can disagree on the application and on what wisdom looks like. In 2008 my wife and I facilitated a church plan outside Paris, France. At church suppers there would be wine at the table. We don’t do that in Philadelphia (although we might draw bigger crowds).

There are other areas where I believe there is room for disagreement - young earth creationism, eschatology (dispensationalism), church polity, etc. I believe in the Genesis creation account and a literal Adam and Eve but do not hold to young earth creationism. Neither do I decry it or attack it. I’m agnostic on the subject of the age of the earth. I’m not a dispensationalist because I see more continuity between Israel and the Church and struggle to see in Scripture the multiple phases of Christ’s return(s). I believe He’s coming again and will reign forever. I believe more than that but don’t separate over views of eschatology. Whether someone believes in young earth or old earth creation, dispensationalism or historic premill, drinks wine or abstains, these things alone would not determine whether I can fellowship with someone, have them preach in our church or preach in theirs. I believe and practice believer’s baptism by immersion but can fellowship with brothers who practice infant baptism (although I couldn’t plant a church with them). I disagree with them. I think they are wrong. They think I am wrong or that we both can be right. We have no doubt had some preach for us who believe differently in these areas. However, on the flip side, since I hold these things I doubt if I would be invited to preach in a fundamental churches or conferences. I understand that. That’s the Fundamentalist way. For many I’m a compromiser. It’s a different vision of separation. How much we elevate these things above the gospel determines the boundaries of our separation. I don’t expect agreement. I believe I practice biblical separation in separating from unbelief, from apostasy, and from disobedient brothers. I don’t separate from disagreeing brothers unless the gospel is under attack. Neither does my fellowship with them require cooperation at all levels.

Of course there’s my own personal story and history with Fundamentalism. But this may already be more than what you asked for.

Steve