http://chucklestravels.wordpress.com/2011/06/12/finally-the-ibfna-makes-... posts a copy of the new speaking schedule as well as
posts a copy of the old speaking schedule http://chucklestravels.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/ibfna-final-schedule-...
Can anyone confirm the change to the itinerary?
It seems to me that if the IBFNA has already released a new copy of the speaking schedule, as Chuckles posted, then we don't really need any more confirmation of the change.
Perhaps is the key word here, but I hope it does mean they are all looking at these events seriously. We won't know for sure what is up until someone publishes a statement.
We won't know for sure what is up until someone publishes a statement.
They may not ever publish a statement.
It's one thing to be uncomfortable enough with someone's actions to decide that you don't want him as a speaker. It's another thing to be so sure someone is wrong that you are prepared to publicly condemn him. There's a middle ground where you don't want to endorse someone but you aren't convinced you should publicly condemn him.
If you are in that middle ground, you wouldn't necessarily publish a statement. You might just change your speakers list and answer questions from your members, but make no public statement. Since the IBFNA at times stresses the autonomy of the local church and actively opposes anything that might look like denominationalism, they may shy clear of interfering in what they would see as a local church matter and decide that a statement is out of place.
I got to know a few of these men fairly well, but have lost touch, so I don't have any idea what they will do. I have to admit I'm glad Pastor Phelps isn't speaking, though. There's just too much baggage, I'm afraid, for it to be profitable or wise, from what I can see.
I think I got my conferences confused. I was thinking the above was this conference that I read about recently http://www.fbfi.org/images/stories/tri-fold_OUTSIDE_merged-2.pdf
I got confused between IBFNI and FBFI. He is scheduled to speak on church music Wednesday this week and his wife is speaking in the ladies track and he is an officer of the FBFI group.
Can anyone give me a short explanation of the two groups?
We won't know for sure what is up until someone publishes a statement.
They may not ever publish a statement.
It's one thing to be uncomfortable enough with someone's actions to decide that you don't want him as a speaker. It's another thing to be so sure someone is wrong that you are prepared to publicly condemn him. There's a middle ground where you don't want to endorse someone but you aren't convinced you should publicly condemn him.
If you are in that middle ground, you wouldn't necessarily publish a statement. You might just change your speakers list and answer questions from your members, but make no public statement. Since the IBFNA at times stresses the autonomy of the local church and actively opposes anything that might look like denominationalism, they may shy clear of interfering in what they would see as a local church matter and decide that a statement is out of place.
I got to know a few of these men fairly well, but have lost touch, so I don't have any idea what they will do. I have to admit I'm glad Pastor Phelps isn't speaking, though. There's just too much baggage, I'm afraid, for it to be profitable or wise, from what I can see.
I wonder though, at what point do these associations need to be more open about their decision making processes? I don't really understand the purpose of the IBFNI, the FBFI, the IBFI, the IFBI, the BBF... if they are organized for the purposes of accountability, they don't, on the surface, appear to do a very good job of it. Perhaps letting the folks know what they are doing and why would reduce the amount of speculation instead of being a source of fuel. It seems to me that Paul was pretty open in his epistles about the problems he saw, how he handled things, what he believed needed to be done...
Not enough discretion and discernment leads to chaos- I get that. But too many goings-on behind the scenes leaves people feeling, correctly or not, that there is too much secrecy, which invites suspicion and mistrust.
On the front page of the FBFI site:
The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International exists to provide a rallying point for Fundamental Baptists seeking personal revival and the opportunity to work with committed Bible-believers in glorifying God through the uncompromising fulfillment of the Great Commission.
I think I got my conferences confused. I was thinking the above was this conference that I read about recently http://www.fbfi.org/images/stories/tri-fold_OUTSIDE_merged-2.pdf
I got confused between IBFNI and FBFI. He is scheduled to speak on church music Wednesday this week and his wife is speaking in the ladies track and he is an officer of the FBFI group.
Can anyone give me a short explanation of the two groups?
FBFI has been around longer and is a lot larger. John Vaughn is the president, Chuck Phelps is the vice chairman. Board of Directors includes Stephen Jones, James Baker (Tabernacle Baptist in VA Beach), Mike Harding (First Baptist of Troy, MI), David Innes (Hamilton Square, SF), and a lot of other pastors and others. Board Members Emeritus include Fred Moritz (BWM), Bob Jones III, Les Ollila (Northland), George Youstra (Clearwater), and a lot of other pastors and retired men.
IBFNA is a smaller group that was started by primarily pastors of churches that left the GARBC in the early 1990s. They would be more separatist and quite a bit more conservative in practice than the GARBC, and probably a little more militantly separatist than the FBFI. Some of the leaders, at the start at least, included Richard Harris (Sellersville, PA) and Ralph Colas (head of the American Council of Christian Churches, founded by Carl McIntire).
They are definitely not KJVO, but DA Waite used to be a member, still might be for all I know. Lloyd Streeter was in the early days as well.
Jerry Huffman, editor of the Calvary Contender, used to be a member. I think he's passed away now.
To answer Susan, neither of them were for the purpose of accountability. That would be somewhat antithetical to the autonomy of the local church, which teaches that accountability should be handled within the local church. How effectively that happens varies widely from church to church. The churches that handle accountability well never make the headlines or the church controversy discussions, of course.
I think I got my conferences confused. I was thinking the above was this conference that I read about recently http://www.fbfi.org/images/stories/tri-fold_OUTSIDE_merged-2.pdf
I got confused between IBFNI and FBFI. He is scheduled to speak on church music Wednesday this week and his wife is speaking in the ladies track and he is an officer of the FBFI group.
Can anyone give me a short explanation of the two groups?
I think they're parallel groups - seems like they are both catering to Ind. Fun. Baptists. I'd always heard of the FBFI - although everyone I'd seen/heard of just referred to it as the FBF - but I'd never heard of the IFBNA until that Chuckles article came out. From the Wikipedia page, it sounds like the IFBNA is more targeted to people who came from the GARBC, whereas the FBF(I) seems to be aimed more at the BJU orbit.
I read the Mission Statements, but then about 5 minutes later I can't remember who's who. I've got Acronym Overload. 
I'm also more of a local girl- I like cooperating with other like-minded churches in my community than trying to 'cooperate' cross country. Not that I think 'national' cooperation is bad, it simply appears to be problematic to me... there is a certain amount of... 'anonymity' one can maintain if you only get together once or twice a year. You can be whomever/however you want to present yourself, because who is going to follow up, KWIM? You could be 'associating' with a total wingnut and not know it until they hit a media windshield and go 'splat'.
To answer Susan, neither of them were for the purpose of accountability. That would be somewhat antithetical to the autonomy of the local church, which teaches that accountability should be handled within the local church. How effectively that happens varies widely from church to church. The churches that handle accountability well never make the headlines or the church controversy discussions, of course.
I have the wrong impression then, because I've heard associations and fellowships described as a way for churches, especially pastor-led churches, to have some 'outside' accountability. Thanks for the correction.
I have the wrong impression then, because I've heard associations and fellowships described as a way for churches, especially pastor-led churches, to have some 'outside' accountability. Thanks for the correction.
Non-Baptist groups may say that. If a Baptist group is saying that, they'll probably end up separating from each other before long over how Baptistic they really are.
Seriously, someone might claim a Baptist group provides that, but it doesn't, and won't, unless they have a real denominational structure like the SBC (and there, it may be pretty limited as well). If an association of independent Baptists tries to provide accountability, the local church can just decide not to go to their conferences anymore. Thus, accountability only goes as far as the local church lets it -- if an independent Baptist church believes in accountability enough to accept it from an outside organization, it probably is handling accountability pretty well internally anyway, and doesn't need the outside organization.
It was emphasized in another thread that members of these associations are individuals, not churches. Is membership limited to pastors and full-time staff, ordained ministers, etc... or can laymen join? I've assumed that the membership was limited to ordained ministers.
I think that is also where I have the impression that it isn't an association of individuals, especially when they engage in crafting resolutions, which by their nature imply some sort of accountability. A pastor would 'take home' a resolution and enforce its guidelines at his church. If so, the church would seem to be a 'member' by proxy. At least that's how it works out in my pointy little head.
It was emphasized in another thread that members of these associations are individuals, not churches. Is membership limited to pastors and full-time staff, ordained ministers, etc... or can laymen join? I've assumed that the membership was limited to ordained ministers.
IV. Membership A pastor or church member shall be eligible for membership if: He agrees without reservation with the constitution and articles of faith, and He is a member in good standing of an independent, fundamental, separatist, Baptist church. (emphasis added)
The FBFI is a fellowship of individuals: pastors, missionaries, musicians, educators, and "laymen" of many varieties. Often we are mistakenly viewed as a fellowship of churches and other organizations.
Usually, but not always, pastors and men in other full-time ministry end up as the leaders of this type of organization. If I remember correctly, David Norris as a layman was very involved in the startup of the IBFNA. Usually, laymen have jobs that keep them from running around to a lot of conferences.
http://www.ibfna.org/v1/
Looks like they make note of it on their web page now.
Written by Bob Payne
Saturday, 11 June 2011 17:58
Please notice the alterations to our 2011 conference schedule.
Attachments: Download this file (Schedule 6_11_11.pdf)Schedule 6_11_11.pdf [ ] 50 Kb
Dave Reinhardt and Ralph Colas will speak in those two slots formerly held by Phelps.
Does this mean that the leadership in fundamentalism is starting to take a serious look at Phelps or something else perhaps schedule conflict, etc?