Tyler Robbins 's Response to Don Johnson (pt. 1)

Don:

This would help going forward. What is your definition on “new evangelicalism?” Has the FBFI defined this movement in a resolution? I pulled this off the IFCA’s site, and I think it gets the idea across pretty well:

These terms refer to that movement within evangelicalism characterized by a toleration of and a dialogue with theological liberalism. Its essence is seen in an emphasis upon the social application of the Gospel and weak or unclear doctrines of: the inspiration of Scripture, Biblical creationism, eschatology, dispensationalism, and separation. It is further characterized by an attempt to accommodate biblical Christianity and make it acceptable to the modern mind. We believe that these movements are out of harmony with the Word of God and the official doctrine and position of IFCA International and are inimical to the work of God.

This definition makes sense to me. I just want to be sure I understand you, going forward, when you mention “new evangelicalism.”

I grew up as an evangelical (I did not grow up in a fundamentalist church- I did not even know any existed in my area until I was in my early 20’s). I left “evangelicalism” when I was 24 years old because of the compromise and lack of separation in the Promise Keepers movement. I read about “new evangelicals” and “neo evangelicals.” That seemed to describe what I was seeing happening in the church I grew up in as they promoted Promise Keepers. That same church just a decade and a half earlier under a different pastor did not even participate in the world day of prayer because they did not want to compromise with modernists. They were always an evangelical church, but at one point they acted more like fundamentalists than they did at the later date. Today we see some evangelical churches trending back to fundamental positions.

I am curious if Don sees any distinction between the terms evangelical and new/neo evangelical? I left evangelicalism for fundamentalism, but that was because of a church’s practice, not their label. I view a lot of the so called convergants as simply looking at what a church is doing now in the area of practice (including separation) and not looking at their past associations (whether they have a long heritage of being in the fundamentalist camp or if they hosted Billy Graham in 1958). At the same time convergants are not willing to give churches a pass on doctrine simply because of their history of association. I view this as a good thing, not something to reprove them over.

On the other hand, I met an evangelical pastor shortly after moving to South Dakota. He was frustrated with the compromise he was seeing and had led his church to a more fundamental position. He had not grown up in fundamental circles, but wanted to learn more. He was still an evangelical and had not broken all past ties. Would Don tell me that I should have separated from this pastor who wanted to learn more and leave him to the influence of the modernists, or should I have done like I did and fellowshipped with him and encouraged him to stand firm in the fundamentals while sharing my views on separation?

[TylerR]

I pulled this off the IFCA’s site, and I think it gets the idea across pretty well:

These terms refer to that movement within evangelicalism characterized by a toleration of and a dialogue with theological liberalism. Its essence is seen in an emphasis upon the social application of the Gospel and weak or unclear doctrines of: the inspiration of Scripture, Biblical creationism, eschatology, dispensationalism, and separation. It is further characterized by an attempt to accommodate biblical Christianity and make it acceptable to the modern mind. We believe that these movements are out of harmony with the Word of God and the official doctrine and position of IFCA International and are inimical to the work of God.

This definition makes sense to me. I just want to be sure I understand you, going forward, when you mention “new evangelicalism.”

I think while New Evangelicalism is all of this, it is probably more. Not limited to “toleration and dialogue” or “accommodation”, but also involves “cooperation” and “infiltration”. Modern evangelicals are characterized more or less by these same principles.

[JD Miller]

I am curious if Don sees any distinction between the terms evangelical and new/neo evangelical? I left evangelicalism for fundamentalism, but that was because of a church’s practice, not their label. I view a lot of the so called convergants as simply looking at what a church is doing now in the area of practice (including separation) and not looking at their past associations (whether they have a long heritage of being in the fundamentalist camp or if they hosted Billy Graham in 1958). At the same time convergants are not willing to give churches a pass on doctrine simply because of their history of association. I view this as a good thing, not something to reprove them over.

I don’t see much distinction between new evangelicalism and evangelicalism any longer. The new evangelicals were probably an identifiable group of leaders, but most evangelicals went along with their philosophy to some extent. By “some” I don’t mean “just a little bit”, but I mean they pretty well adopted the same openness to broader cooperation with modernism and an openness to almost any Christian testimony. Some evangelicals have recently become more discerning, but remain entangled in their cooperative efforts with groups or individuals who are not orthodox. (I am speaking generally here, there are variations of all kinds.)

[JD Miller]

On the other hand, I met an evangelical pastor shortly after moving to South Dakota. He was frustrated with the compromise he was seeing and had led his church to a more fundamental position. He had not grown up in fundamental circles, but wanted to learn more. He was still an evangelical and had not broken all past ties. Would Don tell me that I should have separated from this pastor who wanted to learn more and leave him to the influence of the modernists, or should I have done like I did and fellowshipped with him and encouraged him to stand firm in the fundamentals while sharing my views on separation?

No, no problem with that. More power to the brother and may his tribe increase.

I think we’re seeing why we need to name names and have precise definitions of terms. It seems to me that those in the FBFI consider almost everyone outside their fellowship either a convergent, evangelical, or new-evangelical. Warnings concerning a nameless and generically defined stranger tend to make many in the group suspicious of anyone from outside. It also fosters a confident attitude of “rightness” that can be perceived as arrogance. Adding to that perception is the militant attitude toward those considered disobedient brethren that is nearly equivalent to a militancy that would be better directed at apostasy and false doctrine.

In the interest of peaceful relationships, perhaps we should realize that the FBFI prefers to live in their small tent and when we get to heaven realize that the campground is bigger than they imagined.

And Joel Tetreau’s comments are worth re-reading.

Don wrote:

I don’t see much distinction between new evangelicalism and evangelicalism any longer. The new evangelicals were probably an identifiable group of leaders, but most evangelicals went along with their philosophy to some extent. By “some” I don’t mean “just a little bit”, but I mean they pretty well adopted the same openness to broader cooperation with modernism and an openness to almost any Christian testimony. Some evangelicals have recently become more discerning, but remain entangled in their cooperative efforts with groups or individuals who are not orthodox. (I am speaking generally here, there are variations of all kinds.)

Don, thank you for your prompt reply. I think this is probably where I would differ from you the most on this subject. I am seeing a number of evangelicals heading toward the fundamentalist position while not taking the fundamentalist label. Having said that, I do not necessarily see them heading toward the FBFI, but I also see fundamentalism as much broader than the FBFI just as I see evengelicalism as much broader than new evangelicalism.

I came out of the semi-Pelagian, KJVO, “Sword of the Lord” style fundamentalism. The Lord led my family to a sane church with a good Pastor who also came from that arena. He steered me to Seminary at Maranatha, because he had gone to Fairhaven and knew that place was not for me.

I am firmly planted in the GARBC orbit now, which some would consider a drift to the left. I am interested in the IFCA. I generally consider the FBFI to be to my right, not in doctrine per se, but in application and approach. I generally consider the organization to be perhaps permanently crippled by a mixed constituency which coddles various flavors of KJVO-ism, has lurking anti-Calvinist tendencies, displays a troubling persecution complex and is fixated on “the past” to an unhealthy extent.

I think Joel’s post sums things up well.

I am seeing a number of evangelicals heading toward the fundamentalist position while not taking the fundamentalist label.

Judging from what I’ve seen in evangelicalism / convergentism / IFCA / Conservative Baptist / apostate circles (your description may vary)…most evangelicals look at Fundamentalists and think ‘Hylesism’. So even if they have been exposed to Biblical fundamentalism, the associations are just so powerful that they want absolutely nothing to do with it - this is why I keep bringing up the issues with the FBFI’s rightward flank. That’s if they care about the terms at all, which (as I noted before), most don’t.

I know I have beat this horse down to less than nothing, but what Phil Johnson said in 2005 still applies:

So why was I never part of the fundamentalist movement? Because it was obvious, even when I first became a Christian in 1971, that fundamentalism—the visible, organized, identifiable movement made up of men and churches who proudly labeled themselves as “fundamentalists”— was seriously dysfunctional. In 1971, the most vocal and visible figures in the movement were men like Jack Hyles and John R. Rice. The house where my family lived at the time was less than a mile from the international headquarters of Billy James Hargis, a fundamentalist radio preacher who disgraced the fundamentalist cause in the mid-1970s through an appalling moral scandal. The town where I attended my first year of college had once been the hometown of Carl McIntire, and he still dominated the airwaves there—so I also became acquainted with him through the radio.

Frankly, the closer I got to the fundamentalist movement in the 1970s, the more it seemed to me that the movement had significant tendencies that owed more to the cults and the pharisees than to historic Christianity. So I carefully kept my distance from the movement, while affirming the principles of historic fundamentalism.
During those years I subscribed to The Sword of the Lord and read as much fundamentalist literature as I could find. (Of course, one of the things I noticed right away was that there wasn’t a whole lot of serious fundamentalist literature to read.) After getting my diploma from Moody Bible Institute in 1975, I needed one more year of college to complete my bachelor’s degree, so I attended a fundamentalist school for the 1975–76 school year. That one year in a fundamentalist school convinced me that American fundamentalism as a movement was already seriously and perhaps irretrievably off the rails. The movement was in serious trouble doctrinally, spiritually, and morally.
That was thirty years ago, but even then, the fundamentalist movement was dominated by personality cults, easy-believism, man-centered doctrine, an unbiblical pragmatism in their methodology, a carnal kind of superficiality in their worship, petty bickering at the highest levels of leadership, deliberate antiintellectualism even in their so-called institutions of higher learning, and moral rot almost everywhere you looked in the movement. It seemed clear to me that the fundamentalist movement was doomed.
In fact, by the 1970s, American fundamentalism had already ceased to be a theological movement and had morphed into a cultural phenomenon—a bizarre and ingrown subculture all its own, whose public face more often than not seemed overtly hostile to everyone outside its boundaries.
Frankly, I thought that sort of fundamentalism deserved to die. And I knew it eventually would, because the most prominent hallmark of the visible fundamentalist movement was that its leaders loved to fight so much that they would bite and devour one another and proliferate controversies—even among themselves—over issues that no one could ever rationally argue were essential to the truth of the gospel…

But my subject in this hour is the failure of fundamentalism, and I want to give you three reasons why I believe the fundamentalist movement of the twentieth century went off track in such a serious and catastrophic way. For convenience’s sake, and since you are mostly preachers, I’ve alliterated these. You can take them all three down now if you’re fast enough, but leave some room to fill in the details between the points: First, fundamentalism failed because of a lack of definition. Second, it failed because of a lack of doctrinal clarity. And third, it failed because of a lack of due process.

​It’s also worth noting that Johnson disavowed himself of evangelicalism, and threw evangelicalism ‘under the bus’ to boot:

By the way, I’m not going to suggest to you that the evangelical movement has in any way succeeded where the fundamentalists failed. It would be my assessment that the evangelical movement has, if anything, melted down in an even more catastrophic way than the fundamentalist movement. It’s perhaps not as obvious yet, because the broad evangelical movement has so many thriving megachurches all dutifully buying books for their forty days of purpose and eagerly awaiting the next evangelical fad. But most of those churches are no longer truly evangelical in any meaningful sense. Most of them have no discernable doctrinal position.

Tyler, you keep using the label “semi-pelagian” recently. What do you mean by that term? I think it is relevant for the discussion we are having.

Historically, it is the heresy that man can initiate a response with God, that God’s grace is a response to that effort, and that denies predestination.

The problem is “semi-pelagian” is a derogatory term that Calvinists use against people that are not Calvinist or Arminian. I cannot speak for this former pastor/church that you speak of, but as for me, I am neither Calvinist or Arminian. JESUS through his sinless life, death, burial and resurrection opened the way for man to be able to be justified before God. This is why semi-pelagianism is a heresy. Without Jesus there is no restoration possible between God and man. So, refusing to recognize Jesus’ role in that should be heresy.

The thing is, Tyler, there are many Baptists, in particular, that are neither Calvinist nor Armninian. The theologians refuse to acknowledge this, but it is a fact. Labeling such people “semi-pelagian” is inflammatory and dishonest.

[JD Miller]

Don wrote:

I don’t see much distinction between new evangelicalism and evangelicalism any longer. The new evangelicals were probably an identifiable group of leaders, but most evangelicals went along with their philosophy to some extent. By “some” I don’t mean “just a little bit”, but I mean they pretty well adopted the same openness to broader cooperation with modernism and an openness to almost any Christian testimony. Some evangelicals have recently become more discerning, but remain entangled in their cooperative efforts with groups or individuals who are not orthodox. (I am speaking generally here, there are variations of all kinds.)

Don, thank you for your prompt reply. I think this is probably where I would differ from you the most on this subject. I am seeing a number of evangelicals heading toward the fundamentalist position while not taking the fundamentalist label. Having said that, I do not necessarily see them heading toward the FBFI, but I also see fundamentalism as much broader than the FBFI just as I see evengelicalism as much broader than new evangelicalism.

Yes, it is true that some evangelicals are heading towards a more fundamentalist position and are becoming more willing to contend for the faith. I am glad to see it. However, they are still not fundamentalists, and often deliberately so. I recently reviewed an excellent Baptist history by a trio of Southern Baptists (see Review: The Baptist Story). In their discussion of the Conservative Resurgence in the SBC, the authors say “In addition to establishing their electoral strategy, conservative activists made two other key decisions in the late 1970s that proved instrumental to their success. They rejected the label fundamentalist in favor of the more benign conservative. While the two terms had often been used as synonyms, conservative activists knew that the former was problematic because of its association with J. Frank Norris, the King-James-Only position, strict ecclesiastical separation, and premillennial theology. This decision proved especially prescient after the Iranian Revolution in November 1979 led to the term fundamentalist being applied to militant Muslim revolutionaries.” (p. 286)

So… Yes, the conservative evangelicals are doing praise-worthy things. Yes, J. Frank Norris and the KJO movement are at best unfortunate baggage for the term fundamentalism. However, please note that the conservative evangelicals in the SBC also deliberately wanted to distance themselves from “strict ecclesiastical separation, and premillennial theology.” This is a problem.

Of course fundamentalism is much broader than the FBFI. No one in the FBFI thinks we are the only fundamentalists. It is really slanderous to lay that charge at our feet. Our enemies (including some in this thread) regularly do that. We don’t believe it and don’t hold to that view. What else can we say? It is unfortunate that Christians will stoop to slander in these discussions, but it is nothing more than that.

I agree that you and I might disagree on the distinction between evangelicalism and new evangelicalism. I think that is a mistake on your part. The New Evangelicals were an indentifiable group of leaders (Graham, Henry, Ockenga, Bell, and others, Packer and Stott, too, I’d say) whose philosophy came to dominate evangelicalism to such an extent that there was no need for two separate terms. I don’t see how you can read history differently.

In any case there is clearly a distinction between fundmentalism and evangelicalism and most evangelicals are pretty clear as to what that is.

…to all of those who are repeating “just define your terms.” Write clearly; tell us who you’re talking about, and how we might recognize fellow laborers with this group. Joel’s comment says it very well/ there is a huge enemy called “vagueness” involved here.

And no need to point fingers here; Romans 3:23, we’ve all been there. But let’s grow.

You seem to assume I used the term “semi-Pelagian” in a derogatory sense. I can assure you I did not. You wrote:

The thing is, Tyler, there are many Baptists, in particular, that are neither Calvinist nor Armninian. The theologians refuse to acknowledge this, but it is a fact. Labeling such people “semi-pelagian” is inflammatory and dishonest.

Some men do throw out labels to castigate others. In my case, I did not. I understand what Arminianism actually teaches, and understand their explanation of prevenient grace. I’ve read Wesley, Wiley and Olson. What I experienced was not Arminianism. It was semi-Pelagianism, and I used the label accurately. In the more right-wing, Sword of the Lord-style, KJVO/reinspiration churches, salvation is often presented as completely semi-pelagian. Few of the men from this far right-wing of fundamentalism would understand the terminology, but it accurately reflects their soteriology. In fact, often the theology in these churches is so completely muddled so as to defy normal categorization. To some degree, labels are not applicable to these churches, because their theology in general is so vague.

I don’t use the term in a deliberately derogatory sense. I used it to refer to the soteriology I saw taught and explained from the hard right wing of fundamentalism, which is generally characterized by KJVO reinspiration, a rabid anti-intellectualism, an unhinged and deranged view of Calvinism (i.e. “Calvin is roasting in hell right now”), and a bastardized form of Landmarkism.

So, in a sense, I guess you could say I have drifted from the hard right wing of fundamentalism (i.e. a cult) into the center of Baptist fundamentalism (GARBC). I am happy where I’m at now.

I hadn’t intended on launching into a discussion of semi-Pelagianism, and I assure you I didn’t use the label to smear anybody. Anybody who has escaped from the cult that is hard right-wing fundamentalism understands what I’m talking about. Onto the FBFI and convergents …

Semi-pelagianism denies that Christ is needed for salvation. Is that what these people are teaching?

Of course fundamentalism is much broader than the FBFI. No one in the FBFI thinks we are the only fundamentalists. It is really slanderous to lay that charge at our feet. Our enemies (including some in this thread) regularly do that. We don’t believe it and don’t hold to that view. What else can we say? It is unfortunate that Christians will stoop to slander in these discussions, but it is nothing more than that.

Don,

If that is true—that the FBFI aren’t the only Fundamentalists—why distinguish between Fundamentalists and “Convergents”?
In your Oxgoad article, you provide several “Marks of a Convergent.” I responded to them in the comments, but I’m stuck in the moderation queue, so I’ll post them here… they fit into the context of this point, anyway.

* Anti-separatism (or at least non-separatism)
Who defines this? Is a Baptist who has a Presbyterian speak in the pulpit not a separatist? If a Fundamentalist takes part in a homeschool group that includes Evangelicals, or a seminary professor participates in ETS, is that “Non-separatism”? Is it only “Platform Fellowship” that is the criteria here? In insisting on hard line separatism of the first generation be imposed on the 3rd and 4th generation, you do not allow for any acknowledgement that some of the 3rd and 4th generation of the other side–even if they aren’t exactly like us– aren’t exactly what their predecessors, either.

* Embrace of a philosophy of fellowship, social action, cultural relevancy that is at least similar to new evangelicalism
Too ambiguous to be helpful. No matter how “tight” you might be, there’s always going to be someone who things you are more “new evangelical” than them. Even your comments on this article (where “Matt” talks about the KJV) reveal that with you and the version issue. Someone is going to conclude you are to their “left.”

* Movement from fundamentalist to the convergence philosophy – i.e. the philosophy that embraces evangelicalism and its positions as opposed to fundamentalism and its positions.

Same comment as the previous point… and it is statements like this, Don, that leave people concluding that even though they still would practice separation and hold to pre-millenial theology, that many in the FBFI don’t believe that they are Fundamentalists.

* First-love” Calvinism – the love of a zealot for the new found perfect theology (as opposed to the Calvinist fundamentalist who willingly co-labors with non-Calvinists who share a fundamentalist philosophy)

This is a prominent and discernible trend… But it’s not the only ditch people veer off into. KJV, Keswick, Revivalism, certain methodological approaches… It’s the latest manifestation… and again, is this enough to make someone not a Fundamentalist?

* A new emphasis on Christian liberty (often expressed in use of alcohol and a broader taste in Christian music)
Many FBFI members openly acknowledge that they have implemented a “broader taste” in their congregational repertoire, even if it is with a proverbial discernment asterisk. You have arguably one of the primary enablers of “Broader taste” serving as an institutional head, voted into that position by many FBFI members. If this is a mark of a Convergent (and disqualifies from being a Fundamentalist), you have quite a few within your own ranks.

* Pragmatism in church polity (Application of modern business models to church governance and business practices)
Again, look within your own ranks. I’ve sat in a workshop led by a prominent FBFI board member advocating that pastors need to be less of a shepherd and more of a “rancher.” If this is a mark and trend, it’s not the kind of thing that happened instantaneously, or with no contribution or influence from preceding generations.

* In some, questionable pastoral ethics, seen in shifting existing congregations away from fundamentalist roots
While there may be some truth to this, Baptist churches are congregational in polity. One person should not be able to lead a well-taught and thoroughly discipled congregation very far astray. You have to ask how much if this is responsibility is with the will of a congregation to be led, or sometimes even with a shift a pastor exercising discernment and influence to keep a congregation from changing more radically than they actually did. I will also say that the kind of “Fundamentalist roots” being shifted away from usually have more to do with music and other non-issues than pre-millennial theology and practicing separatism.

* An openness or even embrace of supernatural gifts, especially prophecy, as legitimate modern phenomena
This is a troubling trend, but again, preceding generations have left the door open to this to some degree, with a lot of subjective “God told me” or “the Spirit led” kind of language that is tolerated and sometimes even encouraged in our circles. It is something that needs to be addressed as much within as it does to those perceived to be leaving the ranks.

* A keen interest in the “star” evangelical writers as the “go-to” guys for ministry philosophy, doctrine, reading, etc. And perhaps not only interest, but promotion of their writings as the last word on the subjects they address.

As opposed to previous generations, who quoted different “star Fundamentalists”?

———————————————–

Some of these things you list may be worth noting and being aware of, but they should hardly be criteria to establish clear lines of demarcation between “us” and “them.” Your “marks of a Convergent” list is a great example of why people think the FBFI thinks they are the only fundamentalists. What you (collectively) are accomplishing with this whole “Convergence” issue of Frontline is reducing influence, and communicating to a generation of leaders facing new challenges that they are being provided no room to figure anything out… that the attitude they will be met with is “conform or be cast out.” That’s sad… because there are things each side could stand to benefit from with the other side.