John Vaughn: " Evangelical Fundamentalist Convergence"?

take a look at the faculty page at Central. Near as I can tell, every staff member with an academic doctorate got it at an evangelical school, not a fundamental one—though there are a couple finishing up an academic doctorate at Central. Same basic thing at Faith in Ankeny. I’d guess that outside of a few hyper-fundamental schools, we’re not going to see too many places that are different.

Which is all the more reason for the FBFI to make their arguments public, because the people who are training the next generation of pastors are already “converged.” Obviously I think this is a good thing.

I copied and pasted the characteristics of Convergence stated in Dr. Vaughn’s editorial and in the Whetting Your Appetite article. I smoothed it out a bit for easier reading, but quoted most of it verbatim. If someone already did this earlier in the discussion, sorry, I missed it.

According to the publicly posted articles, here are the characteristics of Convergence, offered without categorization or comment, for the sake of clarity in discussion:

Characteristics of Convergence

Looks very much like the self-styled “Neo- Evangelicalism” of sixty years ago

In its efforts to engage the culture seems to be, again, embracing the culture; seeks to stay in touch with the ever-changing culture

Pastors dividing their churches over changes they promised not to make when they were called

Pastors who have brought their churches to the brink of ruin with premature change

Held certain positions without apology until recently., e.g., “The Scriptures Are the Final Authority for Belief and Behavior.”

Use skits and rock music in lieu of preaching and teaching

Feed their people spiritual junk food, artificial preservatives, and unnatural substitutes, instead of the milk and meat of the Word.

Claim that we should not teach what is not specifically stated in the Bible

Increasingly and militantly use Sovereign Grace Music

Reject discerning applications of Scripture, specifically regarding music

Meet the very mention of “discernment” or “application” (re: music) with the charge of “legalism”

Are either unaware or unconcerned with the roots of Sovereign Grace music

By embracing the fad that is SG music, are putting a stumbling block in front of a new generation, just as giving permission to use Steve Green’s music did a generation ago

Driving a church prematurely into progressive positions and practices against their will or understanding

Do not call all Christians to complete abstinence from alcoholic beverages

Pastors with a hidden agenda leading long-established churches to change

Consider themselves privileged and exempt from the difficulties of separation.

For pretense, invest much in advertising their supposed transparency. Wear the face of concern to conceal the vice of conspiring. Gravitate to “yes-men” while ignoring or avoiding those who disagree with them. Seem to “talk the talk” but not “walk the walk,” covering craftiness with what appears to be patience.

Ministry leaders—leaders of churches and colleges—our friends, whom we hold dear.

You can get some brief thoughts from Kevin Bauder on this FrontLine magazine edition and the FBFI here.

But (thank you, Dean) when FBFI talks about being “unaware or unconcerned about the roots of Sovereign Grace Music”, I cannot be optimistic that they’ve got a real argument, since the very phrasing of the “teaser” makes clear that the article will at least attempt a genetic fallacy called “guilt by association”.

I dearly want FBFI to show me they’ve got a real point that ought to be debated, but that kind of thing does not exactly inspire optimism. And for reference, a lot of Sovereign Grace music (I just looked it up because I didn’t know whether I’d heard much of it) is simply adaptations of hymn lyrics in similar styles to things I’ve heard from Majesty Music. Big difference is that they’re using slightly different vocal styles, as well as drums and guitars. It definitely doesn’t compare with hair metal or rap/hip-hop, and is quite frankly sedate compared to the old black gospel and bluegrass I love.

Tyler,

My article is dealing with trends that effect churches of various evangelical and fundamental stripes. In my local alone I know of six or seven conservative/fundamental Baptist churches, including some very notable ones, that in the last twenty years have directed their services away from biblical preaching and teaching to mini-rock concerts, skits, and very brief “messages” of watered-down preaching. Their approach has been “McChurch”, often following the Saddleback model or Willow Creek model. I agree with you that there are segments of “Fundamentalism” that are very guilty of several issues I wrote about. Dr. Doran and Dr. Bauder, whom I have had in my pulpit many times, are excellent examples of biblical preaching and teaching, and who is more conservative than Dr. Bauder regarding music and worship? My article has nothing to do with either of them and should not be read into it.

I have no doubt that there are problems with Fundamentalist churches going down this road, but there are also problems with evangelical churches going down that road as well. And yet those who have argued against WCC and Saddleback are still ‘convergents’ that must be warned against.

I don’t understand. Isn’t the enemy of my enemy my friend?

While they say a separate article would be needed to fully flesh is out, Tim Fisher (and Vaughn) give a reasonably thorough review of the development of SG from its connections to Catholic Charismaticism to its present Reformed/Continuationist leanings. I’m not sure what Dean Taylor is referring to by saying FBFI is unconcerned about the history of SG.

Edit- I see Dean’s point now. “Convergencetists” are aware of SG’s history and don’t care or aren’t concerned? Catholic Charismaticism… no problem?

[Mark_Smith]

While they say a separate article would be needed to fully flesh is out, Tim Fisher (and Vaughn) give a reasonably thorough review of the development of DG from its connections to Catholic Charismaticism to its present Reformed/Continuationist leanings. I’m not sure what Dean Taylor is referring to by saying FBFI is unconcerned about the history of SG.

Dean is listing criteria the Frontline issue provides regarding marks of those who might be considered “Convergent.” Dean is not listing criteria that defines and describes the FBFI.
EDIT: Mark saw the problem I mentioned (before I mentioned it!) and corrected his post.

“Convergencetists” are aware of SG’s history and don’t care or aren’t concerned? Catholic Charismaticism… no problem?

Mark,

No one is saying that. If the SG grace people were still Catholic, that would be another thing. But that is where they came from, right… not where they are now.

FWIW, there is a popular song that was included in the We’re Singing… from the Wilds that was authored by a current Roman Catholic, called “On Eagles Wings.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Eagle%27s_Wings I know because we used to sing it… the church I served in Maine had that edition, and we used to sing that song to conclude our services.
But since it isn’t associated with performance styles and instrumentation that Fisher finds objectionable, probably not as big a deal… not even worth mentioning. :)
Hey, Roman Catholics are in error. So are Charismatics (though a different level of error for some). That doesn’t mean that their musicians and poets can’t get some things right that are worth singing. I don’t agree with all of Wesley’s theology, but “Jesus, Lover Of My Soul” is still my favorite hymn.

But for me, the main issue is what is your mode of worship? By mode I mean this. Charismatics (I was one… saved watching Believer’s Voice of Victory…that is Kenneth Copeland for all of you who don’t know, in 1991… put that in your pipe and smoke it! :-) ) changed the focus of worship to EMOTION. You connect to God through singing. Over time this relation to God through singing has grown deeper and stronger. Now, many churches (perhaps not Conservative Evan or IFB) focus around music in their services rather than anything else.

I think this happened because the average American has lost their reading comprehension skills. The Bible means nothing to them, even if they say it does, because their reading skills and habits are so poor they DO NOT CONNECT TO GOD THROUGH THE WRITTEN WORD.

That leaves singing. While we focus on SG music and the Gettys, most people are out their singing much worse.

Rather than worrying about drums, guitars, and such, the main problem is MUCH DEEPER THAN MUSIC. It is how we relate to God.. through music or through his Word.

[Mark_Smith]

While they say a separate article would be needed to fully flesh is out, Tim Fisher (and Vaughn) give a reasonably thorough review of the development of SG from its connections to Catholic Charismaticism to its present Reformed/Continuationist leanings. I’m not sure what Dean Taylor is referring to by saying FBFI is unconcerned about the history of SG.

Edit- I see Dean’s point now. “Convergencetists” are aware of SG’s history and don’t care or aren’t concerned? Catholic Charismaticism… no problem?

OK, first of all, guilt by association is a fallacy—it should really have no place whatsoever in our discourse. Plus, the “connection” of SG Music to Catholic charismaticism is that Larry Tomczak and CJ Mahaney left that movement. Do we reject Prison Ministries because they’re connected to felon Chuck Colson? I have it on good authority, by the way, that the Pauline epistles are associated with a confessed murderer! So is the Torah, and so are most of the Psalms. Do we really want to go there?

Moreover, if we say it’s wrong to use Catholic songs, we need to eliminate “Holy Holy Holy,” the Gloria Patri, “O come o come Emmanuel”, and “O Come all ye faithful”, among others. More modern examples include “As the Deer”, an adaptation (with uncertain 2nd person forms) of Psalm 42. Are those ripped out of FBFI-compliant hymnals? What about “O Holy Night”, translated from the French (and arguably mangled) by a Unitarian? Do we rip things out of Lutheran origin because of the ELCA, or the Wesley hymns because of the UMC?

What the argument says, when we look at a typical hymnal at an FBFI-led church, is that denial of all the Solas, denial of the Trinity, and denial of the Fundamentals can be tolerated as long as nobody speaks in tongues. Come on, we can do better than that.

Regarding the abandonment of Biblical preaching, I’ve personally seen that in an evangelical church I left-and which is now a mosque, FWIW—but it strikes me that we really need to quantify this. We can’t do it by time spent—I once heard a guy “preach” for 2.5 hours without saying anything—so by default you’ve got to quantify the phenomenon by an arguably subjective standard, one that recognizes that one person may get a lot out of something that another person finds eminently forgettable. Plus, as long as we admit the need for music in church (1 Cor. 14), and that Psalms 149 and 150 indicate percussive instruments and even dancing, that we’re going to have a tough time excluding the 12 bar blues from music in church unless….we resort to that “guilt by association” fallacy. So the argument is not that rock music replaces preaching, but rather that any music would do so.

Mark, I think I am in agreement with your last post. That is part of the problem with this Frontline issue, though. As Dean’s list illustrated, there is much more concern being expressed with musical choices and related associations than the more substantive issues.

[Mark_Smith]

But for me, the main issue is what is your mode of worship? By mode I mean this. Charismatics (I was one… saved watching Believer’s Voice of Victory…that is Kenneth Copeland for all of you who don’t know, in 1991… put that in your pipe and smoke it! :-) ) changed the focus of worship to EMOTION. You connect to God through singing. Over time this relation to God through singing has grown deeper and stronger. Now, many churches (perhaps not Conservative Evan or IFB) focus around music in their services rather than anything else.

I think this happened because the average American has lost their reading comprehension skills. The Bible means nothing to them, even if they say it does, because their reading skills and habits are so poor they DO NOT CONNECT TO GOD THROUGH THE WRITTEN WORD.

That leaves singing. While we focus on SG music and the Gettys, most people are out their singing much worse.

Rather than worrying about drums, guitars, and such, the main problem is MUCH DEEPER THAN MUSIC. It is how we relate to God.. through music or through his Word.

I hope that this does not embarrass Mark too much, but if we desire, as a group, to come to grips with the real issues surrounding music, we’ve got to, as he notes, get our minds wrapped around the fact that we are becoming, in many quarters, a post-literate society that will need other tools to impart the Word of God to hearts and minds. Agree or disagree on specifics, this is a wonderful starting point.

(plus, I also spent a lot of time among charismatics when I was a baby believer, too….so I’ve got that in common with Mark)

Let me attempt my explanation of the FrontLine issue and the FBFI’s position.

I take it for granted that the average person attending a conservative Evan or IFB church is attempting to read the Bible and relate to God that way. But, there is a strong temptation to use music to relate to God since for many people music is a huge part of their life. That music by the way is (or was before salvation) pop/rock/country music. Pop/rock/country is the music you hear everywhere. Why not use it to praise God?

Good question…

Now add in the separation issue. Should I be listening to secular music? How can you avoid secular music though? Watch the NFL…bam, secular music. Wait in the doctor’s office…secular music. Watch a movie/TV…secular music. It gets in you.

Now come to church. The old songs are good, but they are … well, old. They relate to God with sensibilities that are foreign to modern people. So, let’s write modern songs. I have no problem with that. The thing is, all too often the “hit” songs have association problems. Most CCM artists (I’ll avoid calling SG/Getty CCM for now) are flagrantly Charismatic. Tomlin, Hillsong, Hillsong United, Paul Baloche, etc… are all Charismatic. In MOST CHURCHES that sing CCM these artist’s songs are the mainstay. Plus, the record labels are all owned by secular companies. So, you have to pay license fees to secular music companies to sing “Open the Eyes of My Heart.” Simply put, CCM is Charismatic. There is no denying that.

What about Sovereign Grace and the Gettys? The Frontline piece points out that SG started out as Catholic Charismatic. They are now Reformed Continuationist. I just went to the SG website and picked a random song to sample. The song is “All I Have is Christ.” I have NEVER HEARD that song. Guess who sings it in the demo… Paul Baloche…charismatic.

So, to make a long story short, in a true, practical sense, using modern music from SG or other CCM sources means you are associating with Charismatic Christianity.

It is a fact.

If that is a problem for you, you get to FBFI and Convergence. If not, you plow on.