John Vaughn: " Evangelical Fundamentalist Convergence"?

Tyler,

If you are right in your diagnosis (and I’m not sure you are), the time to pile on is not when hospice is called in. If it’s as inevitable as you say, it will happen without you hastening it.

I understand your aversion to politics… but really, what you call politics is what it takes to get along with people, whether other pastors, church members, people in your community, and so on. Tolerating the foibles and flaws of others is something we are supposed to work at as Christians. And one more thing… I don’t think what I have done in this thread or with Don at P& D has been polite throat clearing, either. I think it’s been pretty clear that I think there are things that are unhelpful and worthy of being opposed in that issue, especially Unruh’s article. But there is more benefit to a conversation with friends, even when there is disagreement, than there is with accusing hostile parties. The former at least has a fighting chance that the objection might be considered rather that met with immediate defense and dismissal, though nothing is ever guaranteed.
BTW, I like Kent B., too. He and I have gotten along well enough, though it’s been a little while since we corresponded. I’ve had my share of contact with men on that side of things, too.

My thanks to Greg Linscott for attempting, and in my case, succeeding, in settling us down. I’ll confess that I get angry when people with whom I share many similar convictions (like the FBFI) use accusative language and hyperbole to demean fellow members of the Body of Christ. I believe in militant separation from apostasy and false teachers. It just hurts my heart when separation from brethren is implemented with the same kind of zeal and militancy with no thought or attempt of “gaining a brother”.

I’m sorry I responded in the way I did when my friends were accused.

Much of this gets back to separation. How much agreement do we expect in order for fellowship and/or participation?

I would look at it this way, broadly speaking. This is coming from someone who at one time in the distant past was probably to the right of FBFI. I have repented and do repent.

1. We can attend conferences and benefit from the speakers – T4G, etc. – even if there are reservations about some of the speakers or theological disagreement. I plan to attend a one-day 9Marks conference at Mark Dever’s church next Tuesday, Nov. 1. This will be my first one. I have never attended T4G, Shepherds, Detroit’s E3, Desiring God, etc. but would if I had time. I’d also like to attend ETS and EMS but my day job makes that difficult.
2. We can speak at conferences and/or churches that are sound on the gospel and the fundamentals of the faith even though we disagree in certain areas (i.e., eschatology, translations, church polity, mode/subject of baptism, view on Bible’s teaching on alcohol use). I would speak at all the above-mentioned and others if I were a big name and if they would have me. I’m not waiting for invitations. Christian ethics would require me to not speak on those areas of disagreement unless asked (i.e., baptism, eschatology, etc).
3. We can partner with others in planting churches and sending missionaries. Here I would draw the lines more clearly when it comes to reproducing churches. I have Presbyterian friends. I would not support or partner with church planters who practice infant baptism. I would not withhold support from someone who is dispensationalist, historic premil, or amil. There may be other reasons not to support them but their position on eschatology would not be determinative.
4. We can love and pray for our brothers with whom we disagree and with whom we cannot fellowship and partner.
5. We should seek to express our unity in Christ and the gospel because we are in union together with Christ.
6. We should separate from disobedient brothers when scripturally required.
7. We should defend the faith delivered to the saints.

And for anyone still reading, I just happen to have an article on SI from 2010 on the subject which expressed my thinking six years ago. http://sharperiron.org/article/agreeing-to-walk-together-what-does-amos…

Excerpt: “Can we agree to disagree and yet agree to walk together in some measure in the work of God and in the enjoyment of brotherly fellowship or at least rejoice at what God is doing in the lives and ministries of others without becoming their critics? One true measure of our understanding of biblical separation may not be how quickly and how often and from how many we will separate, but with how many we will agree to walk together in true obedience and genuine fellowship in spite of our disagreements. Demand agreement and you will find yourself exceedingly lonely and defensive. Seek obedience and fellowship in biblical unity and your circle of faithful co-laborers in the gospel may increase.”

I bought the subscription because I want to hear what they have to say. It looks to be more impotent wagon circling. Perhaps I’m wrong.

I get along with all sorts of people who aren’t like me. A whole lot of folks at my current church (where I am not the Pastor) seem to be more concerned with the future of Israel than the Gospel. I tolerate it, and do what little I can to steer things to a more balanced perspective. Other folks are militant classical dispensationalists, and at the drop of a hat they say, “we’re not under law, we’re under grace!” I suspect some of them, if pushed, believe the church began in mid-Acts. Yikes. I put up with it. Still others are more wishy-washy evangelicals, with a small core center of theology but Jell-O everywhere else. I put up with it, and try to influence them.

I other words - I get what you’re saying about being nice. I fear people will think I’m some sort of deranged looney who hates fundamentalism and is secretly reading Brian MacLaren by solar candlelight. This couldn’t be further from the truth. I think fundamentalism as a philosophy of ministry is Biblical. I think the “big-tent” approach of historic fundamentalism is very helpful.

Let me make a few quick points, then head off to buy that shovel:

• I have seen the fruits of the standards-based, external “Christianity” of the rural Mid-West. I believe legions of people will be cast into hell because of a shallow, standards-based flavor of “Christianity” which arose out of certain flavors of Baptist fundamentalism.
• I don’t believe Bro. Vaughn & Co. want anything to do with this kind of fake Christianity, but the flavor of fundamentalism they’re espousing leads to that. Other men, less intelligent men, lead their churches down this path and it often ends in ruin for those who are “saved.”
• I am certain there are legions of men who will read this post who experienced this. I saw such hard-heartedness and wickedness in my last Pastorate from people who were convinced they were saved, because had the external trappings of tradition. They wrapped themselves in the cozy fleece blanket of a certain kind of Baptist fundamentalism and in their externalism. One of these men had been a Pastor his entire life. I am as certain as I can fallibly be that the man is not a Christian.

I say that to say this - I think a stripe of Christianity which emphasizes correct external behavior more than correct doctrine will inevitably produce this fake, “cultural Christianity.” I believe it is dangerous. I believe correct doctrine will inevitably produce correct behavior, not the other way around. I don’t believe we can afford to be polite to this kind of Christianity. I am as certain as I can be that the FBFI would agree - but I believe their flavor of Christianity will always inevitably produce the very mere externalism they say they fear. Not because they intend it to; but because those they influence (who are not as nuanced, not as intelligent and not as educated) run off the rails like the Judaizers did in the centuries leading up to our Savior’s birth. I have seen it. So have many others. And it breaks my heart to see good men attacking other good men who are merely seeking to reform a movement worth saving.

This is why I am so passionate here. I hope people understand that.

I must dash. Home Depot has a special on shovels.

…at some point Tyler, it’s not what you are saying about your opponents, but what your own demeanor says about you that has to be considered.

It’s entirely possible I may look back in a year or so and wish I hadn’t been so “mean.” Maybe. I admit it. I don’t think so, but it’s possible. I won’t say you’re wrong - perhaps I’m burnt and more bitter than I realize. I’d be a fool to say it isn’t possible.

My last post pretty much sums it up for me. I have nothing more to say at this point.

Take care, everybody. I will stop the subscription countdown.

Count me 100% with Tyler (this will surprise nobody of course) when he says that emphasizing external behavior more than correct doctrine will produce a fake, cultural christianity. It’s what Colossians 2:23 promises, really. Count me 100% with Tyler (and I suspect many others) as well in confessing that when demonstrably false or abusive arguments are offered in favor of a lot of these cultural rules, I do get angry. I try not to “act it out”, but the anger is there, and I’ve rewritten a goodly number of comments to tone them down.

And yes, I’m hoping that in due time, the whole edifice of “rules Christianity” will come a-tumbling down, but (see my comment above) I’m thinking that Paul put that verse in Colossians for a very good reason having something to do with a lot of people being more comfortable with rules than with God’s grace. So, as graciously as I know how, I do a little to chip away at that edifice.

…..of why Bauder’s name gets linked (by some) to the “Convergence” that is the subject of the current FBFI publication:

http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/279-lets-get-clear-on-this

The summation of the article is this:

“So let’s get clear on this.

Conservative evangelicals are not our enemies. They are not our opponents. Conservative evangelicals have proven themselves to be allies and even leaders in the defense of the faith.

If we attack conservative evangelicals, then we attack the defense of the faith. We attack indirectly the thing that we hold most dear, namely, the gospel itself, for that is what they are defending. We should not wish these brothers to falter or to grow feeble, but rather to flourish. We must do nothing to weaken their hand in the face of the enemies of the gospel.

If we believe that we must respond to conservative evangelicalism, then let us begin by addressing the areas in which they have exposed our weakness. Let us refocus our attention upon the exaltation of God. Let us exalt, apply, and defend the gospel in all its fullness. If we were more like what we ought to be, perhaps we would feel less threatened by those whose exploits attract the attention of our followers.

Whatever our differences, I thank God for John Piper. I thank God for Mark Dever. I thank God for John MacArthur. I thank God for D. A. Carson. I thank God for a coalition of Christian leaders who have directed our focus to the centrality of the gospel and the exaltation of God. May their defense of the biblical faith prosper.”

–––––––––––––––

I’d encourage everyone to read (or re-read) the entire article above. It caused quite a stir upon its publication in March, 2010. Many Fundamentalists were offended.

Personally, I thought Bauder nailed it then, and 6 1/2 years later that opinion is unchanged.

The comments on this thread have got me thinking about…

1) The typical number of times/year I have heard alcohol/alcohol abuse or rock music being brought up in a sermon as an issue of grave sin.
2) The type of language and rhetoric used during these sermons or parts of sermons.
3) The enthusiasm of the congregation during these sermons or parts of sermons.
4) The percent of the congregation actually struggling with these issues.

and how that compares with…

5) The typical number of times/year I have heard a verse like Eph 5:25 being brought up in a sermon.
6) The type of language and rhetoric used during these sermons or parts of sermons.
7) The enthusiasm of the congregation during these sermons or parts of sermons.
8 The percent of the congregation actually struggling with this issue.

and why the differences between 1-4 and 5-8 exist.

[Bert Perry]

Count me 100% with Tyler (this will surprise nobody of course) when he says that emphasizing external behavior more than correct doctrine will produce a fake, cultural christianity. It’s what Colossians 2:23 promises, really. Count me 100% with Tyler (and I suspect many others) as well in confessing that when demonstrably false or abusive arguments are offered in favor of a lot of these cultural rules, I do get angry. I try not to “act it out”, but the anger is there, and I’ve rewritten a goodly number of comments to tone them down.

And yes, I’m hoping that in due time, the whole edifice of “rules Christianity” will come a-tumbling down, but (see my comment above) I’m thinking that Paul put that verse in Colossians for a very good reason having something to do with a lot of people being more comfortable with rules than with God’s grace. So, as graciously as I know how, I do a little to chip away at that edifice.

Hi everyone-

Been a while. Figured I would check the website when I saw that Don Johnson mentioned the SI thread at P&D.

While the tone and tenor of the editorial that Dr. Vaughn wrote didn’t surprise me, the table of contents did. Not because of the articles listed - but because the articles there could probably have been taken from an Frontline in the ’90s or even the 2000’s. I would look those issues up, but I’m not quite sure where my copies of Frontline are at present. Really, a lot of the problems that have been mentioned here are indicative of the FBFI’s failure to grow/change, none more so than Tyler’s issues with his online access.

I’ve written a lot about the FBFI here, so I’m not going to write another long post. I just wish that Dr. Vaughn and Don and their friends in charge of the FBFI would realize that they are pushing away Christians that would possibly help them with this kind of stuff. There are still 7,000 that haven’t bowed the knee to Baal, and when those 7,000 see the FBFI training their sights on them (again) as the ‘new-neo-evangelicals’ or as ‘convergents’ instead of co-belligerents, we move on. With rampant secular humanism on the move to attack/destroy/undermine Christian principles in every possible area here in the US, the last thing I want to do is start crossing swords (again) with guys who should be marching under the same banner because we sing music that SGM wrote or because I think that it is possible - although very unwise - for Christians to have a glass of wine.

Maybe in the future that will change, but until there are changes to the infrastructure and leaders, I don’t see that happening. Not when the leadership of the FBFI is self perpetuating, operates behind closed doors, and doesn’t seem to realize that there are real threats to people out in the real world. And that makes this fundamentalist sad.

The Whetting the Appetite article, under the heading, Approving Things That Are Excellent: Discernment in Music
by Tim Fisher and John C. Vaughn, includes a few factual statements that I question. The following is an example (emphasis mine):

But also included in this discussion are musicians who, although not specifically associated with SG, are nonetheless closely identified with the movement because of their presence on SG recordings: Stuart Townend and Keith and Kristyn Getty, who are becoming favorites of some independent Fundamental Baptists. Including the names Townend and Getty in this discussion does not imply that they are in complete theological agreement with SG, but the similarity of their musical style as well as their collaborative efforts over the years with SG are reasons for concern.

Are the Gettys and Stuart Townend on any SG recordings? What are their “collaborative efforts?” I’m not aware of these.

Not trying to nitpick, but am wondering about the factuality of this. A quick search turned up nothing. Anyone know? According to the Frontline teaser, Getty and Townend are named because “although not specifically associated with SG, [they] are nonetheless closely identified with the movement.” So I am wondering if this is accurate.

Dean, the only thing that comes to my mind immediately are the T4G recordings as far as material produced.
They do know each other, and work together in local church and conference settings.
http://worshipmatters.com/2008/02/05/the-joy-of-serving-with-keith-and-…

http://www.gettymusic.com/conference/

Obviously they know and appreciate each other but the connection of the Gettys/Townend to SG has always largely existed mainly in the minds of the conservative music experts who like lump them together to serve their purpose as punching bags. Sort of like they used to lump together Amy Grant and Sandy Patty.

It strikes me that many leaders in Fundamentalism (e.g. pastors or professors at fundamentalist seminaries) have been doing something in the roughly past 20 years (+/-) which was previously uncommon: they have been earning degrees, and particularly terminal degrees (D.Min, Ph.D…), at conservative evangelical seminaries.

Think about it. Without much thought, I can come up with numerous men in Fundamentalism whose doctorates are from conservative evangelical seminaries like Dallas, TEDS, or SBTS, just to name a few.

Per Tyler’s comment and John Lee’s rejoinder, some other gut checks:

• When was the last time you heard a sermon about the vices contributing most to the Wednesday prayer meeting “organ recital” (list of ailments); gluttony and sloth? (me: never)
• When was the last time your pastor preached a sermon on the indispensability of the Trinity to proper exegesis? ( me; never heard it in church)
• When was the last time the principles of Sola Scriptura were used and the pastor admitted “this is profoundly culturally uncomfortable to us, but it is what the Word of God says.” (yes, I’m thinking Psalm 150 on dancing and percussive instruments, John 2, and the New Testament “greet one another with a holy kiss”, not to mention most of the Sermon on the Mount) (me: rarely if ever)
• What about the implications of Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, and Colossians 2:23 on parts of our church covenant?
• What about the implications of Soli Deo Gloria on the form of our churches?
• Looking at Deuteronomy 14:24-26 and other passages indicating some really big, mandatory parties in Scripture, what if we’re being sinful by not “letting loose” and enjoying His gifts from time to time?

Now to be fair, I do hear things about most of the fundamentals—Virgin Birth, sinless life, substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection, 2nd coming—but my unfortunate experience is that the Solas and the Trinity aren’t feeling much love at a lot of churches I’ve attended. If doctrine matters, this is a very, very bad thing.

And one place where I’m going to differ with a few here; given that Jesus’ first miracle was….ahem….who are we to say that it is unwise to enjoy God’s good gifts? (again, do we really believe Sola Scriptura?) Which other good gift of God do we mark “return to Sender”? Do we castrate our sons or give our daughters a radical hysterectomy so they can avoid fornication, STIs, and divorce, or do we subsist on bread and water because most of us are gluttons? All of this happens far more often than does problem drinking or alcoholism, after all.

Yes, be responsible, show compassion for the alcoholic and problem drinker, and all that, but really….if we’re making disciples like we’re supposed to, shouldn’t we occasionally be hearing “I wonder what all the fuss was about in John 2:1-11….anybody know anything about this ‘wine’ stuff?”

And if—when—this happens, we have two choices. We can either say “haram” (forbidden) like our fundagelical culture says, or we can say “you know, it seems like a celebration is as important as the beverage—maybe we should have a dinner party to celebrate God’s good gift. I’ll match the wine to whatever you want to eat.”