John Vaughn: " Evangelical Fundamentalist Convergence"?

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.

For a VERY long time, Christians weren’t literate because it wasn’t possible to get the kind of education that we take for granted. It wasn’t until the Gutenberg press that it was even remotely possible to own a written copy of the Bible, even if you could read it. There were legitimate reasons to chain Bibles to pulpits and that sort of thing in churches - it kept thousands of dollars of handmade, painstaking work from vanishing or being vandalized (or worse) by the congregants and outsiders.

All of this is probably why Paul makes the point to ​command​ that we “address…one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart” in Eph. 5:19.

Received the magazine. Here are my thoughts:

• “Why I Left My Fundamental Baptist Church” by Dan Unruh: Unfortunate article. Sounds bitter. Not helpful.
• “Interview with Dr. Vaughn” by, well … Dr Vaughn: Helpful. I agree with a lot of it. He is more of a Big “F” fundamentalist than I am. It appears to be the grid through which he sees his ministry, like some men are Big “B” baptists, etc. I’m a small “f” fundamentalist. It’s a philosophy of ministry I hold to, but I don’t self-identify (to steal a modern catch-phrase) by the title.
• “Approving Things That Are Excellent - Discernment in Music” by Fisher and Vaughn. I have never been in a church where this has ever been an issue. It never once came up when I was a Pastor. It feels like a different world when I read about these concerns. Perhaps it is because I wasn’t raised as a Christian, and did not attend Christian undergrad. It feels like I’m reading an analysis of the French political system. Different worlds. I think Bible Colleges and Seminaries need to develop a required course on “Theology of Music.” This recommendation was alluded to in the article, and I think it is a good idea. On the whole, I worry young men are basically being given a list of approved (and non-approved) artists and sent out, rather than being taught principles they can apply in a variety of contexts.
• “Scriptures” by Harding. Excellent and helpful.

Overall, I’m not sure who this issue is addressing. Unruh mentions Jason Janz, and specifically compares him to Absalom. Unrah didn’t name him in the article, but hid it in a footnote. That is not good. He referenced something Janz wrote, then spoke of the “vice of craftiness.” Is this a deliberate allusion to Satan!? Sounds over the top.

I don’t think the men who wrote these articles are in the same place in Baptist fundamentalism. Unruh sounds bitter. Vaughn sounds like a good gentleman, and I understand where he’s coming from with music. Harding is always helpful. Johnson, on P&D, called “convergents” moderates. A bit all over the place, and I’m not sure who the real target is:

• Men who are disillusioned with fundamentalism and have become New Calvinist, wannabe hipster Christians?
• Men who are still within fundamentalism, have earned (or are earning) MDiv’s, ThM’s and terminal degrees who seek to reform the movement?

Not sure. And, I suspect if you ask each author, you’ll get different answers. Overall, I don’t think the issue really contributes anything to the discussion. Unruh came out the gate at a sprint with a flamethrower and a bandolier of grenades. The others followed up with normal fare about music, alcohol and “holding the line.” Harding had a helpful article. That’s about it.

My Frontline edition is still on its way to my home in Australia.

As a paid up member of the FBF I hope it doesn’t die any time soon.

Our church uses the Rejoice Hymnal which has some Townsend/Getty music but to more conservative music. Our church loves those songs and I am not convinced we are violating Scripture or building bridges with NE/Charismatic Movement.

Nonetheless, groups like FBF can express their views like other groups do. If there has truly been any breach of ethics, stepping on local church toes etc, then I guess we will hear more of that In weeks to come.

It seems that fundamentalism will always have people who choose to go elsewhere. In my country the IB movement is plagued with difficulties and divisions over the translation issue. It has virtually set us back a generation or more. At least the FBF hasn’t made that mistake.

Greg, I was re-reading this thread and wanted to ask you a question, based on this post.

Sun, 10/23/2016 - 9:32pm

Tyler,

I get what you are saying. But there is a reason I’m “taking great pains to be nice,” as you said. As I tried to demonstrate with the picture, I do think of many FBFI men as friends. I’ve asked them to speak in venues when I’ve had the opportunity. That picture I took was taken later the same day where Matt Recker and I shared a lovely dinner of steaks cooked outside on a grill with several other pastors. We enjoyed true fellowship. I think of Matt as a friend, and Don too. We’ve shared less face time, but I recruited Don as a moderator way back when we we launched SI… he was one of the originals.

But to answer Rob Fall’s observation, it is about principle, yes… but it is also about personalities for me. Not celebrities and high profile personalities, but I have made it my business to get to know some of the actual people. I have met some of these people being called “convergent’ (and perhaps I’m one of them being labeled), and count them too as friends. I have spent a weekend with Phil Johnson, and still have a pretty good relationship with him as a result (I think). I sat in Mark Dever’s office and watched him prepare a Sunday sermon. I just had dinner at Kevin Bauder’s house a little over a week ago. I’m not trying to name drop here, I’m trying to make the point that it’s hard to keep a war going when you know the people, and you understand what they are and aren’t trying to accomplish.

I don’t have universal agreement probably with any of these people I’ve mentioned. I don’t always agree with myself, for that matter! [Smile] But it saddens me when we have things like this Frontline issue, because I see the impersonal assumptions being made, when it seems a pass is given to friends because “they know (that person’s) heart.” I’m going to say that if some of the critics sat down with some of the people they are criticizing, and they really listened to one another… they might not convince one another on every point, but I suspect there would be far less criticism and much less alarm, and a better sense that though we might not always go about things the same way, we aren’t on different teams, either.

I understand that you have been able to get to know these folks and spend time with them in person and face to face. I get that, and commend you for the bridges that you’ve built. If my life circumstances were different, I’d probably do the same. But frankly, my view of this whole mess - going back and re-reading old posts related to the FBFI going as far back as 2009 this afternoon - is that the leaders of the FBFI simply aren’t interested in outside opinions or maybe even outsiders at all except to continually warn everyone that there are enemies. I’ve seen it over and over, and I could pull out a handful of threads here to reinforce that. Now when SI was started in 2005(ish) and I was still a 26 year old seminary student at BJU, I can understand that. Now that I’m a lot closer to 40 and have been knocked around a fair bit, I’m still getting the distinct impression that the FBFI just isn’t interested in hearing from anyone, especially if the ideas are even remotely different (heaven forbid they be antagonistic) to their desired norms and standards.

I’m all for diplomacy. But when the only time I hear from you is because you’re going after fellow soldiers who may be ‘convergent’ - with little detail of what that even entails or warning that there is a problem - my opinion of the FBFI is going to diminish. And having seen this several times now, it’s not like I had the highest opinion of them to begin with. So while I won’t go out of my way to attack them, I’m not prepared to assume they’re on my side, either. I’m certainly not going to assume that they are interested in working together on matters of substance.

1. God’s Word is the means by which He communicates with us today. That is absolutely true. I’m not sure that we would say it is the only way we relate to God, though. His Word actually prescribes that we use music in our worship of Him… not only in the OT (too many times to mention in the Psalms alone), but the New as well (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16). To fail to use music in Christian worship would be disobedient. So, it’s not fulfilling a temptation… it’s following a command.

2. There are different styles that we use for music. Sometimes a song we might use in one setting is also used in another. For example, the Ohio State University has “Carmen Ohio” as their University Hymn. We use the same tune to sing “Come, Christians, Join To Sing.” “America The Beautiful” is usually sung to MATERNA. The OPC’s Trinity Hymnal uses that tune as a setting for a metrical version of the 46th Psalm (https://www.opc.org/hymn.html?hymn_id=214). So, are these tunes secular or sacred? Not necessarily a binary either/or.
3. There are challenges all the time when new music is produced. It’s not like John Newton provided copies of Olney Hymns for free to any church that requested them. It’s not just music, either. Ask Ron Bean sometime about why the Plymouth Colony didn’t use the Authorized Version, instead preferring the Geneva Bible. Associations, anyone? :)

4. I get that you are suggesting that some of the problem with using the music in question is it can be manipulative, and coming from problematic theological sources. Manipulative is not something unique to Charismaticism, though… just ask anyone who has been involved in Christian camping in our circles. :) Even if you aren’t intentionally manipulative, you’ve likely been exposed to that school of thought where you “prime the pump” for responses with your musical choices. We sing songs by paedobaptists, by Lutherans and Wesleyan Arminians…
My point is not that your concerns are irrelevant… it is that they are nothing unique to this era. It’s the kind of thing we have wrestled with in churches like ours for quite some time. And the reality is, as vocal as the FBFI have seemed to be in their publications on this, they don’t have unanimity on this in their practice between them. I know several FBFI board members who have told me straight out they use the kinds of songs in question in their services on a regular basis. Both Majesty Hymns (“There is a Rdeemer” by Melody Green, “Lamb of Glory” popularized by Steve Green) and Rejoice Hymns (“How Deep The Father’s Love For Us”) include songs from outside the Fundamentalist stream of production. It should hardly be a clear line of contrast for who’s a Convergent and who isn’t. It’s a conversation where friends can debate the merits, not a matter over which demands clear choosing of sides.

Jay,

I have had great fellowship and interaction with FBFI men over the years, Kevin Schaal (had lunch with him at the Lansdale conference in the early SI days), Mike Sproul (who I had here in Minnesota in 2014), Mike Harding (who spoke here in Marshall last year), Matt Recker and Don Johnson (met them face to face this past March in AZ)… The fact that they do still talk to me, that you have Mike Harding and Don Johnson participating on this thread, the fact that others I’m sure are reading it, the fact that John Vaughn had my Midwest Congress piece published on Proclaim and Defend… These are things I look at and say that they are interested. There are reasons to wonder sometimes if everyone in the FBFI is interested, and/or if they listened, why hasn’t anything changed… but I wonder that as a pastor about many a church member, too.
In the end, I see it as a long process. I’m not going to win anyone with a harsh dismissal. If I keep being true to my principles, show humility, a willingness to learn and be corrected, an ability to be patient and agitate—getting others to consider things they might not if I didn’t agitate—well, what’s the downside? I still have a great church to serve in. I have plenty of friends I can call on in ministry situations when I need a connection (I’m currently in a conversation planning an opportunity to connect believers in Burma/Myanmar whose connections ave been with true theological liberals to more sound, orthodox men, churches and institutions in the US).
For me, it’s not just the politics or “who you know” so I can advance up some ladder of prominence. How can we help churches like ours advance and be more effective for Christ and the gospel? You connect with churches by connecting with their leaders. That’s my larger rationale for why I do what I do. We have more in common than not, the parties quibbling in this conversation. At the same time, the parties aren’t going to stop quibbling just because someone says to “get over it” (and we SI veterans know, because it’s been attempted. :) ).

Kevin Schaal was my pastor in AZ (and my introduction to fundamentalism). My sister is a member of Mike Sproul’s church, and I had the opportunity to speak on creationism in their adult SS in June.

I am an alumnus (MDiv) and PhD candidate at Central Seminary.

I would label myself as a conservative (Conservative Christian Declaration on Religious Affections website), Baptist, Separatist.

I am currently the pastor of a CBA of A church.

A few thoughts:

On terminal degrees in fundamentalism: Other than BJU/Piedmont (PhD light - 90 credits beyond undergrad), the only PhDs really offered in fundamentalism are at Central (few students finishing) and Clark Summit. So if someone wants a terminal degree, they have to go somewhere: Dallas, Masters, SBC, Trinity, etc.

On changing fundamentalism/churches: Fundamentalism is changing. We can talk about Tetreau’s “alphabet,” or the charts posted by Bauder. Other than the KJO types, within the fundamental circles around which I am, there are three trajectories: more progressive (Mike Augsburger - growing with more of the younger guys), “traditional” fundamentalism (FBFI), or conservatism (smallest but growing).

[Bert Perry]

• 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)

Kevin Bauder, in his In The Nick Of Time series, wrote about Psalm 150 just last month (09/23/2016):

http://www.centralseminary.edu/resources/nick-of-time/loud-clanging-cymbals

His article breaks from the conventional wisdom in Fundamentalism regarding this Psalm in at least two ways (as I read it):

1. I’m accustomed to seeing Fundamentalism dismiss this Psalm as being inapplicable to worship in the N.T. church due to the Regulative Principle. The Regulative Principle notwithstanding, Bauder concludes that Psalm 150 is (at least mostly) applicable to today’s church:

”First, how should Psalm 150 be brought to bear on the worship of the church? It is, after all, part of Israel’s Psalter, written in an Old Testament context for use in Israelite worship. There are interpreters (such as Peter Masters in Worship in the Melting Pot) who believe that the worship of the church is so exclusively regulated by New Testament precepts that Psalm 150 does not apply to local church worship today.

Masters and others who take this approach argue from a perspective known as the Regulative Principle of Worship. What the Regulative Principle says is that the church in its present form is an exclusively New Testament institution, and Christ alone is its head. Consequently, Christ has the right to stipulate what the worship of the church must look like. Christians must not make up new forms of worship on their own initiative, and then must not bring Old Testament patterns forward unless those patterns are specifically authorized by Christ’s apostles in the New Testament.

While I affirm the Regulative Principle, I nevertheless wish to take the side of our unnamed speaker. I think that most (though not quite all) of Psalm 150 should apply to the church. To explain why requires a couple of logical steps.”

2. Bauder next rejects the position taken by many in Fundamentalism that certain instruments, or categories of instruments, are patently unacceptable for worship:

“We need to recognize that the church is specifically authorized to employ music in its worship. We also need to realize that the Greek participle psallantes in Ephesians 5:20 implies that this music may be instrumental (specifically, strummed) as well as vocal. If both vocal and instrumental music are authorized, then we have to ask what instruments we ought to use. I think that Psalm 150 answers that question.

Why turn to Psalm 150? For two reasons. First, it is all about praising the Lord, which is worship. Second, its exhortations apply to “everything that has breath.” In other words, the teachings of Psalm 150 apply to any and all living beings engaged in the worship of the Lord. Ephesians 5 tells the church to worship with music, and specifically with musical instruments. Psalm 150 tells absolutely everyone, including the church, what instruments are appropriate. We have plenty of reason here to believe that God really does wish to hear cymbals used in worship, at least some of the time.

He also wants to hear horns, woodwinds, and both plucked and strummed string instruments. The text does not mention bowed instruments, which had not yet been invented in the ancient world, but the breadth of its requirements would hardly exclude a good string quartet from worship. The psalmist was naming every category of instrument known in his day, which probably implies that every subsequent category of instrument is also included.

That observation leads to the second question: what kind of cymbal playing (other than “loud”—and are cymbals ever really quiet?) does God want to hear? You can hear loud cymbals in Tchaikovsky’s Overture Solennelle. You can hear loud cymbals in Sousa’s Stars and Stripes Forever. You can hear loud cymbals in Prima’s Sing, Sing, Sing (With a Swing)—especially the versions that feature Gene Krupa on percussion. In each case, however, the musical composition uses the loud cymbal to emphasize something different. Cymbal players can say different things and accomplish different kinds of goals with their instrument.

The same can be said of other percussion instruments. The question is not whether drums are appropriate in church. The question is rather how those drums are going to be used. Tympani are essential to the Brahms German Requiem, and especially to the “Denn alles Fleisch, es ist wie Gras.” John Bonham’s drum kit was essential to Led Zeppelin’s Moby Dick. Both Brahms and Bonzo relied on percussion for musical power, but they used it in different ways and for different ends.

What about guitars? If any musical instrument is biblically authorized for use in the worship of the church, it is the guitar (see psallantes above). But should it be the guitar of Christopher Parkening playing Bach’s BWV 1006 Prelude, or should it be the guitar of Jimi Hendrix playing Purple Haze? Each is superior after its kind, and each guitarist a virtuoso, but the two guitars are obviously saying different things.

At the end of the day, the real question is not what instruments we can have in church. The real question is how we should expect them to be played. The answer to that question has to be gauged by what the particular way of playing—the musical form, style, idiom, or individual composition—is saying. For worship, meaning determines suitability.

Suggesting that Psalm 150 requires the regular use of all categories of instruments is probably an overstatement. Not many churches can put together a real orchestra. Most cannot field a band, or even a piano trio. Better to say that all instruments—including loud cymbals—are authorized for use in worship. Acknowledging that fact, however, does not answer the question of how they ought to be played.”

very good. Bauder’s point rests on exegesis rather than the very nebulous and (to me) unconvincing argument of association.

Well, now I know what Bauder has done that has put him under fire from the FBFI. (Just kidding)

Seriously, though - Bauder didn’t say anything last month that ‘convergents’ or ‘young fundamentalists’ haven’t been saying for literally years. While I’m glad that he’s making the exegetical argument and calling out the weakness of the other position, it strikes me as more than a little strange that the argument has merit now.

So what actually changed? Is it as simple as Dr. Bauder saying it because he has credibility as a true ‘fundamentalist’ instead of someone else saying so, like one of those convergents or new evangelicals?

Or is this ​prima facia evidence that Bauder himself is ‘compromising’ to the men of the FBFI, and one more reason to attack him?

Greg Linscott for President !!

Dr. Bauder is one of the best writers and thinkers when it comes to Christian music and worship. I have benefited through the years by his personal conversations with me on the subject, his messages, and his articles. Dr. Bauder for Vice-President. Write-in campaign begins November 8th.

“Ode to Joy” and “Be Still my Soul” are both based on pantheistic/pagan root pieces, the 9th Symphony of Beethoven and Sibelius’ Finlandia. Again, if we want to play “guilt by association” in music, we’d better get the scissors out and get rid of a lot….for that matter, since so many of our hymns share tunes with those introduced (or adapted) by the Genevan Psalter, will there be even more eliminated because of objections to Calvinism?

And going way, way far, given that the early church presumably used musical forms known to Jew and Greek…..we will see that applying the fallacy of guilt by association is flat out incompatible with the Bible’s command to praise God in song.

(well played, Larry)

I am personally coming more and more to the conclusion that to get out of the morass of man-made commands that have plagued fundamentalism in areas like music, churches are going to need to say something like “you know, the Bible commands some of these things, and while we don’t know exactly how they were done back then, we are yet commanded to do so….let’s give it a try and remember that God will forgive us when we make mistakes as we try to obey Him in these areas.”

In other words, we really ought to do something that we’ve found difficult; be willing to make mistakes.

During my 12-year pastorate at Calvary Baptist Church in Simpsonville, SC, the following happened:

During a congregational Q&A session that was part of my candidating process in 2003, I was asked, “If you become our pastor, will you always use the King James Version of the Bible?” My answer was that I currently (then) used that version for preaching and teaching, occasionally referring to other translations, and that I had no plans to change, but would not say that I would never change. About 5 years into my pastorate there, I had thoughts of changing to a current English translation for preaching and teaching. I did not bring it up to anyone at first. During a deacon meeting, a deacon who was a long-time member of the church asked, “Would you ever consider changing to a modern translation?” That started a year-long discussion and ensuing steps of 1) teaching our people about the Bible’s inspiration, preservation, and translation; 2) considering making a change and eventually 3) opening up the use of current English translations in our church including the NKJV for preaching and teaching.

A few years later I taught a series called Renewing Biblical Christianity. The driving theme was that the people of each generation must hear, understand, and apply truth for themselves. Pastors and parents cannot merely pass down their own applications, especially in areas where the Bible is not specific. We must help each new generation of younger people and of new believers understand truth and apply it for themselves. Our practices and traditions cannot be their primary guide. I stated that among the members of our church, there would be differing applications, especially regarding lifestyle issues where the Bible is not specific (e.g., music, dress, school choice, etc., etc.) and that is not a bad thing. And there is no uniform for church (e.g., coats and ties for men, dresses or skirts for women). The Bible doesn’t say that you should “wear your best for God” to church on Sunday. In fact, it’s better to not be showy or display wealth by dress that makes community people who walk in on Sunday feel totally out of place. We encouraged women to feel free to wear slacks if they were comfortable doing so. I stopped wearing a tie on Sunday nights (!). I also made the point that within the church family (as well as the greater Christian community) we should show respect and recognize Christian liberty in musical choices. We will have differing applications among church families, and that is ok. The series didn’t emphasize dress or music, but we definitely made applications to these areas since they are high on the list of areas where Christians differ and where many follow tradition rather than truth. (People still thank me for this series.)

I developed and taught a philosophy of musical worship called Worship On Purpose. I believed and shared that we should be thoughtful and engaging in the way we worshipped together on the Lord’s Day. In addition to being purposeful, I wanted to arrive at a good, current, Bibically-based rather than tradition-based position and practice of music. We began using some modern hymns, including selections from Sovereign Grace, Getty, Townend, and other contemporary musicians. We eventually introduced the use of an acoustic guitar, a cajon (occasionally), a small ensemble leading with their voices (frequently though not every service) with our congregational singing, and all lyrics projected onto a screen. Here is part of the statement I wrote and we followed:

A blend of old and new music - We selectively use music from various sources. Our use does not indicate support of everything the source (composer, publisher, or musician) does or represents, or the style in which it might have originated or in which it is presented by others.

Style that is both conservative and current - By “conservative” we mean driven by truth and values rather than trends and a marketing mentality. We are not quick to change for change’s sake, and if we change anything, there is a reason for it that arises out of biblical truth or values that are based on Scripture. We do not use a rock-and-roll style of music in our church gatherings. By “current” we mean not anachronistic, frozen in a past culture, or stale. We mean fresh, intentional, and considerate of the community, culture and time in which we minister.

Common ground - When we come together as a church family, we unite our hearts and voices in praise to our one Savior. We endeavor to use music in our church gatherings that builds up and unifies, not music that produces conflict or division. We avoid music that may appeal to a subset of the congregation while alienating others.

I was not “unaware” nor was I “unconcerned” (see Frontline article) with the roots of SG and Getty/Townend music. We were very aware and chose to be selective. I taught our people to use discernment rather than be governed by categories (CCM vs. traditional) with music as well as other issues. I determined that association, by itself, was not a reason to keep our church from benefiting from solid music being embraced by the larger church of Jesus Christ in our day.

Many, many people welcomed these changes. Some were opposed, and some left the church. One member who is well-known and influential in Fundamentalism decided to leave our church, and I asked him for a biblical reason for his action. His only Bible response was to quote Amos 3:3, Can two walk together, except they be agreed? Another individual who had served in various leadership capacities and was at that time the teacher of a large class came to my office on a Tuesday to inform me that he and his wife were leaving and would not be at church the following Sunday. He was leaving his class without even a goodbye. He told me, “I’m IFB and you’re on a Conservative Evangelical trajectory.” I was able to talk him into at least going to his class for one more Sunday to tell them he would no longer be teaching and give them a chance to say their farewells. Some churches in the Greenville area known for being very traditional welcomed with open arms the migrants from Calvary and other churches that were “changing.”

I can honestly say I did not have a hidden agenda to “go contemporary,” become a Conservative Evangelical, or follow any fad. As the lead shepherd of the church, an elder of the church, and the overseer of it, I studied the Word, evaluated the life of our church, and preached, taught, and led as I believed best. My goal was to fulfill Ephesians 4:11-16, which includes this aim of church growth: till we all come … to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. Occasionally someone would ask the question, “Where are we going?” I answered with those words – “the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ!” I preached more than one message on this goal for the church. The church should, yes, must be changing!!! Jesus’ fullness includes grace and truth (John 1:14,17). Are we “progressive?” Yes! We must be progressing toward being characterized by grace and truth! And that means we must eschew traditionalism and embrace appropriate change, both individually and in the life of the church.

I could share more examples from my experience as a pastor, but I’ll move to where I am now. By God’s grace, I serve as Professor of Pastoral Training and Chair of the Ministries Division at Faith Baptist Bible College. My previous role as a pastor and current position in a college make me, I guess, one of the “ministry leaders” addressed in the Frontline articles. Thankfully, where I serve, Bible translations are not an issue. We are free to use any solid English translation. The most commonly used are NKJV, ESV, and HCSB. The school has a clear position and practice of music that is very conservative. But students and faculty can attend the Baptist church of their choice, whether or not the culture of the church exactly fits that of the school. We have faculty members who participate in the Evangelical Theological Society. The associations of this school are broader in some areas and narrower in other areas than what I’ve experienced in my past ministries.

I dropped my membership in the FBFI several years ago, after the Calvinism fiasco and a few other disturbing occurrences. I just did not want my name in a directory of people who were identified with that. Dr. John Vaughn is a very gracious individual. I had the privilege of touring Israel with him a few years ago. I respect and appreciate him as a person. I have other good friends who participate in the FBFI. But I can’t identify with the organization and all that it represents. I shared with one ministry friend that I feel more at home at Shepherd’s Conference than I do at an FBF meeting. I have a lot of respect and have benefited much from the teaching and ministry emphases of MacArthur, Mohler, Dever, Begg, Larson, et al. I am not a Conservative Evangelical, nor am I becoming one. But I appreciate and learn from certain of them.

I look at the characteristics of Convergence stated in the Proclaim and Defend posts, and I see some that might describe me. Other characteristics may be assumptions that observers would make about me without knowing all the facts. And several don’t fit me at all.

I don’t find labels helpful to this kind of discussion. Neither does it help to evaluate men, ministries, and movements according to extra-biblical criteria, label them, and make pronouncements about them. I have yet to read the full Frontline articles. I think the library here at Faith subscribes, so I won’t have to pay to read them. I’ll see if the complete articles help me know if I’m a Convergent or not, and what, if anything, that means for me.

Thank you for sharing that. I was not aware of the details of your experiences.