FBFI and the KJV
- 55 views
As I understand the FBFI it is a fellowship of pastors. They should know better but I don’t think everyone in the pews necessarily should.
Which is exactly why I am so flummoxed as to how our brothers in the FBFI are acting. Someone who gets swept into that mess as a young and immature believer is one thing. But men who went to college and seminary and who took systematic theology classes and have been in ministry for decades should recognize the issue…and it seems like the typical response is to pretend like it’s not a big deal.
I talk to people on SharperIron about this topic much, much differently from how I would treat someone in my church struggling with it. I expect more from the men on this site. I CERTAINLY expect more and better from the Board of a self-styled “Biblical Fundamentalist” organization that has been aware of this issue since 1979. Teachers, stricter judgment, etc.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Magazine sales!
Why the FBFI won’t move faster on this: the risk of losing subscribers
[Don Johnson]I am grateful for the leadership, friendship, and balance of the other men on the FBFI board. I think we are thinking through these and other issues all the time, trying to be an influence for good in the broader body.
Don,
Typically, you and I agree on the issues raised on SI. I appreciate your conservative bent. So, when I say what I’m about to say, it isn’t against you personally.
How can the self-appointed men on the FBFI Board bear the responsibility of “thinking through these and other issues all the time, trying to be an influence for good in the broader body?” Isn’t it arrogant to assume such a calling within the independent Baptist (or any) movement? What makes them more qualified than the rest of us?
Herein lies the deeper issue. 20 men on a “Fundamentalist Sanhedrin” feel like it’s time for the membership within its group (and others) to line up a certain way on an issue. So, they schedule speakers and issue resolutions calling on their constituents to get in line. That’s not the way Baptist church polity works.
Mark Ward was a poor choice to deliver this message. Typically, the FBFI would shun him because of his association with The Gospel Coalition https://www.proclaimanddefend.org/2017/09/07/the-gospel-coalition/. Certainly, the FBFI should distance itself from his criticisms of godly men such as Clarence Sexton and Paul Chappell. Sexton and Chappell are faithful independent Baptist brothers in Christ being used of God in marvelous ways.
Some years back, I took young people to Youth Congress at Crown College. During a Q&A time for youth leaders, someone asked Sexton about standards. He graciously stated that Crown College and Temple Baptist’s standards are what work best for those ministries, but that he does not expect other ministries to be exactly like them — they need to figure out what God wants for them. He then quipped, “I just hope that folks dress right at my funeral!”
What makes Sexton and Chappell appealing to independent Baptists is that they know their place. On that front, I think the FBFI Board could learn something from these brothers in Christ.
[C. D. Cauthorne Jr.]How can the self-appointed men on the FBFI Board bear the responsibility of “thinking through these and other issues all the time, trying to be an influence for good in the broader body?” Isn’t it arrogant to assume such a calling within the independent Baptist (or any) movement? What makes them more qualified than the rest of us?
I am not going to be drawn into a discussion regarding the FBFI on this thread. The issue under discussion is King James Onlyism. The only comment I will make at this time is to echo what I said to Tyler earlier, you quite obviously badly misunderstand the FBFI, its composition, mission, and purpose. Please go to our website and read our documents. Our constitution, bylaws, purpose statement, etc are all published there for anyone to see. You can agree or disagree, your choice, but that will tell you what we are about.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Bro. Cauthorne:
The FBFI did indeed invite Ward to speak. You suggest they should “shun” him because of his “associations” with TGC. They didn’t do that. What’re you gonna do about it? Behold:
- Ward has “associations” with TGC
- Ward has “associations” with the FBFI
- Ward also has “associations” with SI; particularly because I did a 90 minute interview with him earlier this year and posted it as a front page article
- SI hasn’t “shunned” Ward
- The FBFI hasn’t “shunned” Ward
- You haven’t yet “shunned” SI, despite the fact we’re “associating” with him
- You continue to post here, perhaps making yourself complicit in his “bad associations”
What’re you going to do about it, I wonder!? Can’t we be a little more charitable than this?
On a different note, your crack about a “Fundamentalist Sanhedrin” is one for the ages. I wish I’d have thought of it. When I use it in the future, I’ll give you credit for it. Outstanding!
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I am not going to be drawn into a discussion regarding the FBFI on this thread. The issue under discussion is King James Onlyism.
Isn’t the title of this thread “[The] FBFI and KJV”? Haven’t we been discussing the two subjects from the jump? And NOW all of a sudden we aren’t going to discuss them?
JohnE, thanks for the note, and I am sorry for the confusion - I should have been clearer. I understand where you are coming from, but I have far less patience for the FBFI than you do precisely because of posts like that one.
C.D., that was an excellent post. Thanks for framing you question that way - I hadn’t ever seen it like that.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
In defense of the FBFI - not every fellowship or association is alike:
- The GARBC is an association of churches - the leadership chosen by delegates of the association churches
- The IFCA is an association of churches that individuals may join (kind of a dual membership / association structure)
- The FFBC is organized like the IFCA. When I pastored a FFBC church, both my church was associated and I was an individual member as well. Nearly 25 years after I left the church, I remained a member - up to 3 years ago. Leadership chosen by delegates and individual members
- The aforementioned MBA … is an association of churches. Leadership chosen by delegates
- The FBFI is an individual membership (with no church association). Personally I feel the closed-loop self-perpetuating board of directors instead of a membership-selected board is the Achilles’ heel of the FBFI. Hence the comment above about being a Baptist Sanhedrin. But it is what it is - with its strengths and limitations.
Changing from a self-perpetuating board of directors to a membership-voted board would be a welcome but major change.
Frankly with a strong KJVOnly constituency, it could result in the FBFI becoming KJVOnly or the FBFI self-destructing.
While the board of the FBFI are all pastors (active or retired) or leaders, am I correct in assuming that not all members of the FBFI are pastors/missionaries/chaplains?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
Why would such a change be welcome? Baptist history will tell us that organizations with messenger elected boards fell into apostasy or other compromise. The tide couldn’t be stemmed in the Northern (now American) Baptist Convention. The Conservative Baptist movement organizations went directly from Baptist separatism into New Evangelicalism in the 1960s with messenger elected boards. And self perpetuating boards can have their own issues.
Baptist World Mission was organized in 1961 with a messenger elected board. In the mid to late 60s the constituency changed the structure to a self-perpetuating board. The issue of fidelity to a fundamentalist, Baptist position was part of the discussion. That is part of the BWM history as recorded in Now Is the Time - A History of Baptist World Mission. I believe the book is still available from the mission office. BWM experienced a struggle and loss of some constituency at the time because of the switch, which occurred largely as a result of Monroe Parker’s leadership and vision. The ministry ultimately regained those losses and grew much more, and has consistently maintained its Baptist, separatist, fundamentalist position. The bottom line is that historically, there is no absolute way to keep a ministry from compromise. Ministries with boards elected by either methodology have stayed true, and ministries with boards elected by either methodology have diminished.
Firstly: Who’s on the various FBFI boards. A list of very strong fundamentalists which is commendable! (Dr Moritz is included!)
[Fred Moritz] Why would such a change be welcome? Baptist history will tell us that organizations with messenger elected boards fell into apostasy or other compromise.
Thank you Dr Moritz for your comment.
The 2 questions:
- Re: “Baptist history will tell us that organizations with messenger elected boards fell into apostasy or other compromise”. Would you say this is true of the GARBC? The IFCA? The MBA? The FFBC? (all messenger-elected boards!)
- If the self-perpetuating board of the FBFI is so advantageous, why hasn’t the heresy of KJVOnlyism been rooted out?
Dr. Moritz just confirmed something that I wondered about earlier today but hadn’t been able to put out here yet - that the FBFI, forged after the battles in the 1930’s and ’40s or whenever it was - was deliberately designed and structured so that the Board has all the power within the organization.
Baptist history will tell us that organizations with messenger elected boards fell into apostasy or other compromise. The tide couldn’t be stemmed in the Northern (now American) Baptist Convention. The Conservative Baptist movement organizations went directly from Baptist separatism into New Evangelicalism in the 1960s with messenger elected boards. And self perpetuating boards can have their own issues.
Even the President of the FBFI, in reality, has zero power to effect change, as per the FBFI Constitution and Bylaws:
b. Duties of the Board of Directors:The Board of Directors shall govern all affairs of the Corporation, as directed by this Constitution and such standing policy statements as may be adopted from time to time. The Board of Directors shall speak to the CEO with one voice through adoption of its Constitution, policy statements, or majority vote.
So it really doesn’t matter what Dr. Schaal says or wants to do. The Board can simply ignore him, override him, or fire him and replace him with someone more to their liking.
I think this is why Don won’t entertain discussion about the FBFI here. He’s only accountable to the other Board members of the FBFI, not to hoi polloi like us or even the shrinking FBFI membership. The members are expected to simply pay dues and show up…except that now a lot of people aren’t bothering to do either, and the organization is hurting for money and involvement. I’d also bet that a lot of the current members that are still there are wondering why it’s so hard to get a hearing on anything or to make any decisions. It’s all because the Board isn’t worried about what the members are. They’re worried about what the other Board members are worried about - the “incipient Convergent threat” or whatever else the issue of the moment is. Anything outside of their cloistered walls is either irrelevant, overblown, or unimportant. This also explains why Don keeps reiterating the point that many people would be hurt - many people that he or other Board members are close to or pastoring would be hurt. Anyone else is…. on their own, if they’re even interested in the FBFI.
It’s really sad.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
Please read my statement near the conclusion - the lesson of history is there is no sure way to protect an organization.
You ask why the heresy of KJVOnlyism hasn’t been rooted out. Have you read the various (six I think) standing resolutions the FBFI has adopted over the years on the subject. Please read them and then tell me how much KJVOnlyism the FBFI endorses.
Discussion