What, precisely, is a “Convergent” fundamentalist? That is, what are the “marks” of a “Convergent” fundamentalist?

These types of discussions seem to eventually point us back to the basic question, “What is Fundamentalism?” Originally, it was defense of the fundamentals of the faith without which, Biblical Christianity ceased to exist. Today, it seems to have become a certain circle of fellowship, in which all those who are “in” are entitled to the term, and all those who are outside are denied the label of Fundamentalist, or at least, “True Fundamentalist.” Sigh. Can we ever get back to a vigorous defense of the Biblical gospel without the baggage of cultural norms and good old boy networks?

If you are talking about historic fundamentalism, count me in. If you mean something else, please count me out.

We often speak of the “marks” of a church. Well, in this kind of discussion, I believe the FBFI needs to define what it means when it speaks of “Convergent” fundamentalists.

If what Bro. Unruh says about “convergent fundamentalists” is true, then they’re very dangerous indeed! But, we just need to know what, in his, John Vaughn’s and the FBFI’s mind is an alleged “convergent fundamentalist.” In other words, who are they talking about and how can we know how to spot these people? Moreover, what kind of message is the FBFI communicating to the rest of Baptist fundamentalism by publishing a piece which makes such sweeping and serious claims about these “convergents?”

This is all very troubling. Hopefully, this is a misunderstanding and dialogue with the author will clarify the matter.

Since Tyler’s questions are consistent with the excerpt of Unruh’s article that I saw, as well as with Vaughn’s teaser, I’ve got to conclude that Unruh is extremely sloppy in his thinking and writing (failing to even define critical terms like “convergent” and “separatism”), and is moreover willing to make some fairly reckless accusations of those he’s criticizing—the Absalom thing. Moreover, Unruh misses the obvious point that it was David, not Absalom, who set the stage for that tragedy. There is a lesson there, no?

If we want people to take our writing seriously, we have got to do better than this. We need to throw the flag when ad hominem attacks and other genetic fallacies are used, and we need to start asking ourselves “does this really follow?”

I am hopeful that there will be a meaningful response and some beneficial discussion. I’ve been timidly asking similar questions in personal conversations for almost 20 years and have experienced three things.

1. I’ve seen that creating a nameless “enemy” is useful in making the people inside the village fearful of “strangers” and of leaving the town limits.

2. I’ve found that defending generic statements with specific details is not something that people like this do well.

3. I’ve also found that asking questions, especially those that need answers, can still get a person dismissed as a rebel.

We already have the answers we seek. Convergent pastors are those who allow SG (whether Steve Green or Sovereign Grace) music into their churches, don’t prohibit drinking “beverage alcohol” (I love this term) from the pulpit, and who promote conservative evangelicals to their congregation or associate with them. There may even be a hint of “and they dress down for Sunday worship, don’t use the KJV, and don’t preach against women wearing pants” thrown in for good measure.

Look, this is the SAME song and dance I’ve been hearing since the 80s. None of it has to do with the fundamentals of the faith. It is all cultural fundamentalist baggage.

[T Howard]

We already have the answers we seek. Convergent pastors are those who allow SG (whether Steve Green or Sovereign Grace) music into their churches, don’t prohibit drinking “beverage alcohol” (I love this term) from the pulpit, and who promote conservative evangelicals to their congregation or associate with them. There may even be a hint of “and they dress down for Sunday worship, don’t use the KJV, and don’t preach against women wearing pants” thrown in for good measure.

Look, this is the SAME song and dance I’ve been hearing since the 80s. None of it has to do with the fundamentals of the faith. It is all cultural fundamentalist baggage.

From the FBFI’s 2009 resolution # 09-02:

“And whereas sins previously not named among believers such as the use of alcohol as a beverage,
premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, profanity, vulgarity, immodesty, and much more are now not
only viewed unashamedly by believers as entertainment but also practiced without shame among those
who name Christ,” - http://fbfi.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Complete-Resolutions-2010.pdf

–––––-

To the FBFI, the use of “beverage alcohol” is not a matter of Romans 14 Christian liberty or individual conscience, nor is it something that may merely be considered unwise for a believer, it is a SIN.

I was curious about Dan Unrah so I went to his church website and sure enough, a position paper on music. I quote here from it:

Music always consists of three elements: Melody, harmony, and rhythm. Without any one of these elements a composition is not music. These elements must be put in proper priority. The melody is the theme of the music. The harmony and rhythm are supposed to elevate the melody. Any time the melody becomes subordinate, the music is unbalanced. Both secular musicians and sacred would agree that melody affects the spirit or soul, harmony affects the mind and rhythm affects the body. Musicians know that they can get people to respond different ways by over emphasizing certain elements. For example: the New Age Movement seeks to help people self actualize by reaching an altered state of consciousness. One of the ways they use to accomplish their goal is music. The New Age style of music over emphasizes harmony. It is done on purpose to help people meditate and lose their mind. Styles are made by simply emphasizing certain elements in different ways. The only people who consistently argue about these basic musical principles are Christians! The secular musicians know exactly what they are doing!

This is so wrong on any number of levels. The reason only Christians debate this stuff is because the rest of the world knows better. Here are just a few things wrong with this one paragraph:

1) Harmony is in fact not necessary in music. In fact, the discover of harmony occurred just a few centuries ago in Western music and has been in use only that long.

2) The whole idea of imbalance between melody, rhythm, and harmony is far oversimplified and certainly open to all kinds of debate. The idea that melody affects the heart, harmony affects the mind and rhythm affects the body? I would love to see the studies to support that.

3) “The New Age style of music over emphasizes harmony. It is done on purpose to help people meditate and lose their mind.” Um, really? New Age music is actually known for very simplistic harmony though I will admit it might seem sophisticated to people used to singing horrific 3-chord gospel songs like “Jesus Saves.” And what can I even say about the fact that New Age music is designed to help people lose their mind?

I applaud the effort to try to build bridges but honestly, I am through trying to debate the absurd with people who dogmatically proclaim this kinds of stuff.

I remain hopeful Bro. Unruh or somebody in the FBFI will clarify what they mean, and explain the comments in Bro. Unruh’s article which, on the face of it, appear to be very “provocative” indeed. I could be wrong. I just don’t know.

I hope some dialogue is possible. I was upset and outraged last week when this first came across my radar screen, and I wasn’t constructive in my criticisms. I was wrong. Now, I am trying to be constructive. I hope some in the FBFI are willing to look past any outrage they feel and do the same.

The editorial at the front of the magazine says they’re issuing a “loving rebuke.” They want to talk. Let’s talk, brethren. You started this public conversation with this latest issue of Frontline. I’m willing to chat. Let’s make it happen.

What is the difference between a John MacArthur/John Piper/Mark Dever and Fundamentalists?

–– Mod note: Slightly edited –––

Tyler and I have communicated privately, and I want to make a few comments publicly at this point.

First, as I said to Tyler, I think he really only has a few questions, not 48. He is quite repetitive, asking essentially the same questions over and over. This implies to some that bro. Unruh’s article is also disorganized. I think it is fairer to say that Tyler is repetitively asking the same questions to different points in bro. Unruh’s article.

Second, I am planning to reply to Tyler and will do so both privately and probably publish it at oxgoad. (My little-used blog, lately.) Time pressures will not allow me to get the response out right away, but I will plug away at it. I’ve explained my circumstances to Tyler and he seems happy to be patient (so far!! heh!). I’ll try to come back here with a link once I get it done.

Third, yes, this is a conversation we have been having for quite some time. I think it is important to talk about it, but I would rather that we try to keep the snide remarks and insults out of it. If our goal is to inflame each other, that would be the way to do it, if our goal is to have a productive conversation we should refrain from taking shots at each other. Some will say, “well Unruh started it” - maybe so, but as my mother used to say, “you don’t have to finish it.” One complaint I frequently have heard from the less strict side (what shall we call them, “convergents”? or???) is that the old-line fundamentalists like the FBF (“spits”) never listen and talk down to us. Well, brethren, from the “old line” side, we think we are getting slander and sneering from your side as well. How about we just stop that, take a deep breath and speak kindly to one another? I’ll try to start and keep it that way.

Ephesians 4:29 Let no unwholesome word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, so that it will give grace to those who hear. 30 Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. 31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. 32 Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you. 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; 2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. 3 But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks.

We will get further if we talk to one another like Christians. I haven’t seen a lot of that in the threads on this topic in the last week or so. We can do better.

I apologize for my comments about the FBFI and Bro. Unruh from last week, on the earlier thread. I was upset and I acted irresponsibly in several posts. I have hit the reset switch and posted the questions I had as I read (and re-read) Bro. Unruh’s article. I shall be patient as you respond. I know you are busy, and I am not in a hurry. I promise. :)

[TylerR]

I apologize for my comments about the FBFI and Bro. Unruh from last week, on the earlier thread. I was upset and I acted irresponsibly in several posts. I have hit the reset switch and posted the questions I had as I read (and re-read) Bro. Unruh’s article. I shall be patient as you respond. I know you are busy, and I am not in a hurry. I promise.

thanks, I appreciate it.

More to come. Now I am off to make lunch for my mother! She’s 92. A wonder!

[TylerR]

We often speak of the “marks” of a church. Well, in this kind of discussion, I believe the FBFI needs to define what it means when it speaks of “Convergent” fundamentalists.

…….

Tyler,

I write as an interloper because you mentioned the “marks of a church.” Yesterday, along with the five other elders from our church, I attended my first 9Marks conference at Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, DC, pastored by Mark Dever. The 9 Marks are a good place to start for the church. I was reminded that Dever was invited to a fundamentalist conference a few years ago and shared the platform with Drs. Jordan, Bauder, and Doran. It was a great “convergent” moment but many saw it as compromise since Mark Dever is an amillennial Southern Baptist who shares the platform with Mahaney, Keller, Piper, Mbewe, etc. There were probably a couple hundred mostly young men at the conference. Many are church planting; many are revitalizing churches. Not everyone there would partner with everyone else and I’m sure we could find something to disagree with. The problem with any Christian movement is when something or someone else becomes the center rather than Christ and the gospel. With cultural Fundamentalism separation and issues are at the center. If Christ and the gospel were at the center, separation would have its rightful place but not the center place. Your ‘marks of the church” also reminded me that God’s movement is the Church not parachurch organizations (as helpful as they might be in service to the Church).

Steve

Is this really a common expression? Other than Dever’s book, which I have never read, I have never heard the expression.

[Dan Unrah] Music always consists of three elements: Melody, harmony, and rhythm. Without any one of these elements a composition is not music. These elements must be put in proper priority. The melody is the theme of the music. The harmony and rhythm are supposed to elevate the melody. Any time the melody becomes subordinate, the music is unbalanced. Both secular musicians and sacred would agree that melody affects the spirit or soul, harmony affects the mind and rhythm affects the body.

This is the same nonsense I heard in the 80s. The reasoning follows thusly: rhythm affects/appeals to the body (i.e. your flesh). Your flesh is sinful. Therefore, listening to music that contains rhythm appeals to your sinful flesh (instead of to your spirit) and is sinful. Galatians 5:16-17. Q.E.D.

Once this fallacious reasoning is accepted, it is then applied to any so-called Christian music with drums or a beat in it (e.g. Steve Green) to prove the music is sinful regardless of the lyrics.

And, if that appeal is not successful, then we make an appeal to one of the 3 principles Dan’s position paper lays out: the “new song” principle, the principle of appropriateness, and the present predominant association principle. This net of “discernment” will catch any and all so-called Christian music that isn’t in our hymnals. (You still use hymnals in your church, don’t you?!?!)