Thanks, Dave. You make some good points, although I will offer some counter-points in defense. I think especially well-taken is the distinctiveness of the confessionalists. They are a different breed as I understand it, you are right to point that out. They defy our attempts at defining categories, at least the way I’ve laid this out.

Yes, some of these earmarks are true of Fundamentalists, but they are not ALL true. In other words, a Fundamentalist may be susceptible to the notions of Church as corporation, but he will not be characterized by very many of the rest on this list.

I do think the single elder ruling pastor is the biblical model, however. I don’t mean dictatorial, but I do mean that the pastor is given the office and title of overseer for a reason.

I reject the arguments about soft cessationism. That just isn’t what cessationism is about at all. It’s an attempt to confuse the issue. Cessationism/non-cessationism is about the continuation of the at-will miracle gifts listed in 1 Cor 12. To attempt to include other matters (“the Lord told me”) is an attempt to confuse the argument.

I don’t hold to “the Lord told me”, but the trouble there is mysticism, not cessationism/non-cessationism. I’m not sure about “missionaries walking on fire” – haven’t heard of that one particularly. I have heard of demonic activity in some third-world missions, but not so much that missionaries themselves have participated. Regardless, this is still not the argument for cessationism or not, its a different category.

Thanks for commenting!
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

This triage effectively ignores the Confessional Christianity (sometimes called Confessional Evangelicalism) practiced by Reformed Baptists and certain Presbyterians, notably the OPC. Maybe LCMS and WELS as well. I don’t think these can be simply lumped in with the rest of evangelicalism due to a few key distinctives (strict adherence to an orthodox, historic confession being the foremost). Not to mention that these groups, especially the first two, seem to me to model the most conservative extant philosophy of ministry and worship (including music), if not in sheer numbers, then probably by percentages.

Secondly, of the earmarks of convergents listed above, some are actually as true of Fundamentalists as anyone. Looking to the big names and taking their utterances as the last word is new and convergent? Excuse me, but Jack Hyles, the Bob Joneses, and etc. And looking to business practices as models for pragmatic ministry? Where does the Single Elder CEO model or pack the pew night or VBS come from? Historic church practice? It seems to me secular marketing is well entrenched in fundamentalism. Furthermore, I’ve heard plenty of soft continuationism in Fundamentalist circles. Missionaries walking on fire, pastors told by God to do this or that, again, etc.

Fair enough, Don, that you point out that generations past may have cracked the door to some of these things. I suggest, however, they actually laid the ground work. Perhaps even pioneered to bold new realms.

And liberty in some of the things you raise is not new. Look at areas in which the Puritans and the historic church allowed liberty. Not much new going on today.

Anyway, I ramble. But this fence-posting just doesn’t make sense to me.

Good to chat with you again, Don. I hope you are well.

I think, Greg, we are talking past one another.

Here is what you said to set me off on this train of thought:

I actually do think that, because when you distinguish between “yourselves” and “Convergents” so broadly, you aren’t really admonishing as brothers.

You appear to be objecting to our raising questions or disagreeing strongly with the direction that the Convergents are set on. You do so by alluding to 2 Thess 3.15. I point out that the kind of admonishment Paul has in view in that reference is very stern: “note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed” (2 Thess 3.14). You counter by citing other references to admonition that are “kinder and gentler.” These other references are fine in their place, but the passage you alluded to is one in which the admonishment is stern and strong.

I think the current situation calls for strong admonition, especially in light of the fact that these men are not really walking with us. If anything, they are attempting to undermine our position and take over or destroy ministries that took years of toil and investment to build (witness Northland). If you look again at our latest magazine, we aren’t really attempting to call these people back to us but to explain to those who are with us what is happening and to prepare them to avoid allowing the same thing to happen in their own churches and ministries.

You can shake your head and chide all you want, but I think that what we are doing is in keeping with the Scripture and is the right thing to do.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Colossians 3:16 certainly would be talking about admonishing between brothers (and sisters), whether or not there is an exact phrase to quote from. If you want to score on a technicality, have at it, but it seems to me almost as if you’re arguing that we only need to be kind and tenderhearted to those we forgive, because Ephesians 4:32.

If you want to ignore the larger point because of a technicality, that’s your prerogative. There is certainly room to justify both “brotherly love” and exhortation/admonishment in a way that doesn’t warrant marking and avoidance.

But if you are going to draw the lines here, it not going to be others you cut off from yourselves as much as you cutting yourselves off from others. I suspect you’re okay with that. Unfortunately, more and more of those you’re cutting off are, too.

The phrase “admonish as a brother” is limited by the context in 2 Thessalonians. It’s the passage you referred to, other uses of “admonish” are irrelevant to the meaning of 2 Thess 3. They are not describing the same thing at all.

Now one could say that what we are doing is not 2 Thess 3, but something else, in which case “admonish as a brother” is irrelevant.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Don,

They are relevant in that admonishing doesn’t have to mean “mark and avoid.” One brother might admonish another to be more aggressive and have walk-the-aisle invitations, but if the more Calvinist brother doesn’t heed, that doesn’t necessarily mean either 1. mark and avoid, or 2. stop admonishing. :)

The point is that there should be room for some of these kind of differences not to be a matter that distinguishes to the degree it did in this issue.

But when you say, “you aren’t really admonishing as brothers,” which passage were you thinking of? I suspect it was the 2 Thessalonians one. The other passages are not really relevant, are they? There has been plenty of admonishing going on with respect to the issues we raise and have been raising for years. It is not as if these men haven’t already been admonished.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

That’s only one usage, though. We also have 1 Thess 5:12-13:

And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and _admonish_ you, and to esteem them very highly in love for their work’s sake. Be at peace among yourselves.

…and Colossians 3:15-17:

 And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful.  Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and _admonishing_ one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him.

In other words, not all admonishing of brothers has to to with parting company. Part of what should be asked here is what makes something like a musical choice a matter that apparently warrants “noting” and “having no company” (which is the impression the issue and your subsequent defense seems to provide), while some of the doctrinal and methodological differences that you acknowledge exist between members of the FBFI seem to provide no such warrant.

Colossians 3:14, cited above, reminds us that “the peace of God” should take priority in our _collective_ hearts… it is in the context of relationships between believers that constitute the Body. Obviously to you and me, we would say the primary application is in the local church. I don’t think that means that we have no obligation to consider it in matters such as we are discussing, though.

While the concerns aired may all be worthy of consideration, I contend not all of the deviations warrant a “mark and avoid” response.

When talking about admonishing brothers, it might be helpful to include all the context:

2 Thess 3.14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. 15 Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

The word “admonish” has a soft tone when taken out of context. In context, however, it involves pretty stern action. How is it that we are to accomplish it without “having no company” and “noting”?

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

I actually do think that, because when you distinguish between “yourselves” and “Convergents” so broadly, you aren’t really admonishing as brothers. You leave the impression that “we” are right, and furthermore, that it is just as problematic for a church or pastor to permit certain kinds of music with no formal disclaimer as it is to encourage and indulge in consumption of alcohol–which is what is being done when you have these vague “marks” indicative of one overarching term.

There are matters that justify drawing a line and separating over. I don’t believe that all of those being identified as “Convergents” fit that description, or for that matter, that all of the membership of the FBFI supposedly leveling the collective charge are clearly distinct from what they are accusing others of… especially when one includes the congregations members serve in and the ministries they administer (like Christian day schools).

Some of the things said in the issue deserve a hearing… as do the counter-points. Some of the cryptic accusations contained, left undefined and relying on unspoken assumptions, amount to schismatic divisiveness.

The purpose of questioning it, then, is a sincere desire that you and others would reconsider what has been said and how it was delivered. If you really want an audience to hear your concerns, there are better ways to go about it.