Response to Tyler Robbins

This article is to respond to a lengthy piece by Tyler Robbins reacting to an article in our most recent FrontLine magazine. Tyler is unhappy with the article by Dan Unruh entitled, “Why I Left My Fundamentalist Church.” Dan’s article is among a collection of articles in this issue dealing with what we are calling “convergence,” that is, the phenomenon of individuals formerly connected with the fundamentalist movement who are now embracing certain aspects of the Evangelical movement. This change of position really is a new thing, it isn’t fundamentalist and perhaps it isn’t strictly evangelical either. Dan is writing about one part of that phenomenon where convergent pastors have decided to move their formerly fundamental churches into a more evangelical position. I wrote an article on this myself some months ago, entitled “What to do when your church leaves you.”

I should also say that my answers here are my personal opinions. I am not speaking for the FBFI at all, the only individual who speaks for us is Dr. John Vaughn, otherwise when the board speaks, we speak through position statements adopted in our meetings.

Tyler had 48 questions in his article, I pointed out to him that he was quite repetitive! He was asking questions as he worked his way through Dan’s article, but he has helpfully reduced his questions to just these four:

1. What are the marks of a “Convergent” fundamentalists and how can we identify one?

2. Do you believe in “big-tent” fundamentalism; that is, is this movement bigger than Baptists? If so, how do, how would these “big-tent” fundamentalists avoid being “Convergent” from your point of view.

3. Bro. Unruh compared “Convergent” fundamentalists to (a) the rebel Absalom who defied God, (2) the “fierce wolves” and false teachers from Acts 20:29-31, and (c) a possible allusion to Satan (“craftily”). Why assume sinful intent, instead of prayerful and honest conviction?

4. How can younger fundamentalists better learn from you AND perhaps even honestly disagree without being considered “heart-stealers?”

I think these are pretty fair questions. Let’s see how I do answering them.

What are the marks of a “Convergent” fundamentalists and how can we identify one?

Perhaps the first thing to say is to quibble with the question. In my view, someone who is convergent is not a fundamentalist. He once may have claimed to be a fundamentalist, but he has changed his views and really exhibits disdain for fundamentalism now, regardless if he continues to claim the label.

• Anti-separatism (or at least non-separatism)
• Embrace of a philosophy of fellowship, social action, cultural relevancy that is at least similar to new evangelicalism
• Movement from fundamentalist to the convergence philosophy – i.e. the philosophy that embraces evangelicalism and its positions as opposed to fundamentalism and its positions
• “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)
• A new emphasis on Christian liberty (often expressed in use of alcohol and a broader taste in Christian music)
• Pragmatism in church polity (Application of modern business models to church governance and business practices)
• In some, questionable pastoral ethics, seen in shifting existing congregations away from fundamentalist roots
• An openness or even embrace of supernatural gifts, especially prophecy, as legitimate modern phenomena
• 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.

This list shouldn’t necessarily be considered exhaustive, there may be a few more characteristics, but I guess these are the main ones. Also, not all convergents will share every characteristic on this list. I am thinking here in particular of the “First-love” Calvinism point. Some convergents are not Calvinistic. BTW, not all Calvinists are convergent. Don’t accuse me of saying that!

The most important characteristic is anti-separatism, and a disdain for separatists.

For further insight, please read again the interview article from Dr. Vaughn, “An Interview With Dr. Vaughn on Current Trends in Fundamentalism.” The article addresses this question in much more depth.

Do you believe in “big-tent” fundamentalism; that is, is this movement bigger than Baptists? If so, how do, how would these “big-tent” fundamentalists avoid being “Convergent” from your point of view.

Fundamentalism is a philosophy that transcends denominations. There are fundamentalists among the Presbyterians and among other groups, though the majority of fundamentalists today are probably Baptists. Convergence isn’t denominational, like the New Evangelicalism, it is a mood or philosophy that affects how the ministry is conducted, what issues and ideas are promoted, what actions are taken individually and through church ministries (assuming the convergent is in a leadership role in the church).

The most important way to avoid being convergent is to be committed to personal and ecclesiastical separation. That commitment will manifest itself in various ways, but the other marks I mention above will dissipate if that biblical commitment is made and applied consistently.

Bro. Unruh compared “Convergent” fundamentalists to (a) the rebel Absalom who defied God, (2) the “fierce wolves” and false teachers from Acts 20:29-31, and (c) a possible allusion to Satan (“craftily”). Why assume sinful intent, instead of prayerful and honest conviction?

I think if you read the article carefully, you will find that bro. Unruh is not speaking of all convergents, but a specific subset of them. His concern is something that I have seen repeatedly in my ministry – men join a pastoral staff (or become the pastor) and attempt to lead a fundamental church away from its fundamentalist position. On some occasions, these men, having failed to lead the whole church in the direction they want to go will attempt to take a faction out with them, causing a church split and a lot of heartache. That is not to say that every church split is of this character, but the fact remains that men have entered church leadership positions with a non-fundamentalist (convergent) philosophy in their minds. They think they can do better than the fundamentalists who preceded them and over time sway the people in their direction.

The church doesn’t belong to the pastor, it is unethical to hold a pastorate with mental reservations about the founding documents of the church, whether it be constitution or covenant. If a pastor sincerely comes to a new conviction, the ethical thing to do is to resign his position and find a pulpit more conducive to his point of view. Instead, men move away from the fundamentalism on which the church was founded, and seek to take the church with them.

Further, when it comes to the comparisons you mention, the comparison in the article is made with Absalom’s methods, not with his relationship to God. “A fitting lesson is provided in the story of Absalom, a man whose methods seemed to be virtues but were actually vices.” (paragraph 3, emphasis added). With reference to Acts 20, bro. Unruh is referring to verse 30, not verse 29 when he says, “The purpose of this article is not to warn the heartstealer but rather to warn those who are susceptible to having their hearts stolen—a warning that must oft be repeated even as the apostle Paul ‘ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears’ (Acts 20:31) about those of their own assembly who would arise to attract disciples to come behind them.” (same paragraph, emphasis added for comparison with the wording of v. 30: “Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.”) Paul doesn’t refer to these heartstealers as wolves (v. 29) but as troublemakers from within. Finally, regarding “craftily” — why must Satan be the reference when we speak of craftiness? Jacob was crafty, his sons were crafty (deceiving their father about Joseph). Craftiness is a trait of men as well as of Satan.

If you look at the article in the light it is intended, I don’t think the comparisons are unreasonable.

How can younger fundamentalists better learn from you AND perhaps even honestly disagree without being considered “heart-stealers?”

As to the first part of this question, the way to learn is to take time and get involved in fellowship meetings where you can gain instruction and encouragement. As I look back on my own ministry, I realize that pastors with young families have precious little time and many responsibilities which sometimes make involvement in good fellowship difficult. There are only so many conferences, meetings, etc., that one can afford both the time and money. I am afraid that many fellows start developing disdain for fundamentalism by making “stars” out of evangelical writers, spending their “fellowship dollars” on evangelical conferences, find the local fundamentalists to be provincial, ungifted, uninspiring, and the drift is inevitable. Personally, I have found that getting to know other fundamentalist pastors and attending fellowship meetings has been a great encouragement to me in facing the challenges of the ministry. Here are the fellowship opportunities that I have availed myself:

1. Our regional FBFI fellowship meeting – I’ve rarely missed for the last decade and a bit. This has been invaluable, and has provided other pastors I can bounce ideas off of, observe their ministries and challenges, etc. And we’ve had some good preaching.
2. A local reading group we call our Whetstone fellowship. We got this idea from Mark Minnick years ago, but four of us read books together, then meet to have lunch and discuss. For us it involves geographical challenges and an all-day commitment when it happens, but it is worth it. We talk about more than the book! And we’ve read a lot of interesting books, mostly by evangelicals I guess, but our commitment to fundamentalism is strong and we can profit from reading together and noting strengths and weaknesses of the books.
3. A local prayer meeting of pastors. Currently it is just one other man and myself, but we meet once a month for prayer for each other’s ministries and for other ministries on the Island. This is a great help to us.

So how to learn? Get involved in fundamentalist groups like this. Make friends of fundamentalists. Find out how they think and the reasons for what they think. I think you will find there are clear biblical reasons for the philosophy of ministry we follow.

And to the question about honest disagreement, well, none of the men I mentioned in the fellowship activities above agree with me 100%. Some of our disagreements are quite sharp. We mostly don’t talk about those areas once we discover the sharp edges. The basic commitment to fundamentalist philosophy is there. So we agree to disagree. The same would be true of any other fellow who would join with us. It isn’t at all that we must walk in lock-step with one another. But there is a core philosophy that binds us together. If you don’t have that, well… how can two walk together except they be agreed?

As for being considered a ‘heart-stealer,’ remember that is a characteristic of some but not all convergents. You won’t be considered a heart-stealer because of diverging opinions about non-fundamentalist issues. You will only be considered a heart stealer if you are the kind of guy who ingratiates himself into a group with an ulterior motive to re-orient or to divide.

I hope that helps answer your questions.