Are you an IFB?

Some time ago it occurred to me that “Fundamentalist” as a term not longer was a close match for my position:

What formed this view:

• Jack Schaap and the recognition that whatever he is …. I am not
  
  
• The Pastor Sweatt issue with Calvinism … http://sharperiron.org/2009/05/18/time-to-speak-up] thoroughly discussed here on S/I
  
  
• The BJU / John MacArthur “blood issue”. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/blood.htm Details here .
  
  
• http://weblog.wordcentered.org/archives/2009/02/27/comparing_two_baptis…] Chuck Phelp’s comments on Calvinism
  
  
• The prevalence of the KJVO position in Fundamentalism. A recent illustration is the hosting church of this Summer’s FFBI meetings. http://crosspointeindy.com/crosspointe/about-cbc/what-we-believe/ Position on the Scriptures : “and that He has supernaturally and miraculously preserved the Word of God; that He has seen fit to preserve His Holy Word in the English language in the King James Version of the Holy Scriptures” (See image below)
  
  
• I am comfortable with the term Baptist. See my doctrinal statement (link below)

While, I do believe in Biblical separation. where I live and work, the term “Fundamentalist” does not communicate my own position.

I’m not sure I view a fundamenalist as a bad thing. Perhaps peoples definitions differ slightly I suppose. I do know that Jesus said that blessed are those whom stand firm when things are said about you falsely for His name’s sake. I would not drop the reference to my beliefs because of what the world says about or how it classifies fundamentalism. I’m also not sure I would drop the reference because someone I either disagree on doctrinal issues with or perhaps is teaching a false doctrine claims to be a fundamentalist.

I guess that is a very personal choice to make after prayerfully being considered.

Hope you all have a blessed Lord’s Day!

Patrick

There are so many that use it who I don’t like…

• Rob Bell
  
  
• The pope
  
  
• Mormons
  
  
• etc.

And to top it all off, there’s Jim Peet and Ron Bean***

Yeah, I’m not sure I want that label anymore either…

~~~

***For the humour challenged, this is meant as a joke.

To make a point.

No, I’m a Reformed Christian who is a member of the Presbyterian Church of America. Amazingly, I can’t think of a single person in the PCA or in the broader http://www.naparc.org/ NAPARC community with whom I am ashamed to share my name. I’ve never had to say, “Yes, I’m PCA, but not like that PCA guy.” Of course, I have had to do that a few times with “Presbyterian” regarding PCUSA antics.

Reformed Christian who is a member of the Presbyterian Church of America

I don’t think you can fit that on a T-shirt.

It doesn’t take very many bad apples to taint a group or a name. The ‘newsworthy’ (and the definition of that is usually NOT a flattering one) get in the news, and that’s too bad, but really- are we always going to give ground every time the lunatic fringe starts adopting a descriptor we are using for their own purposes?

For example, there was a news report some years ago, I think CBS did it, called “The Dark Side of Homeschooling”. They featured ‘homeschooling’ families that were absolutely brutal, even to the point of murdering their children. Turns out, those children had been in public schools for years and had been reported to CPS as many as 20 times. The children were never removed, and the parents withdrew their kids to ‘homeschool’. They never complied with the laws in their state regarding home education, and so the kids were actually truant. But- I have heard for this report referred to again and again and again and again and again as a reason that homeschooling is bad and should require stringent regulations. (this is NOT a homeschooling rabbit trail, but an example) It is also why I am so credulous when the news media has yet another ‘scandal’ to break open.

The focus on the antics of a few extremists by the media (including Christian media) smears everyone who thinks that historic Fundamentalism has meaning that is worth preserving. Personally, I know enough IFBers who have never even heard of Jack Schaap or Jack Hyles or the FBFI or the IBFI that, unlike Jim, I don’t have to give up ‘being IFB’. HAC, BJU, et al are not as well known as some think they are. Some people are busy taking care of their families and evangelizing their communities and don’t give a rat’s eyelash about what happens in IN or FL or SC.

Susan, I guess the point that I’m trying to make is that a rejection of connectional church government, in whatever form, necessarily leads to these kinds of problems. You say there’s a lunatic fringe; someone else says that the lunatics are the IFB mainstream. How do we know? There isn’t a central registry where we can go and count them.

No one can just claim to be PCA without submitting to the authority of our church courts. However, anyone can be IFB just by saying so. There isn’t a “lunatic fringe” of the PCA, because churches that practice thorough government and oversight weed out lunatics. There’s no way to get rid of IFB lunatics; they aren’t accountable to anyone.

Every church has connections. They have some network in which to recruit pastors, to have conferences, to take their kids to camp, to find missionaries to support, etc. But IFB churches have informal, unaccountable connections. So, you can’t get rid of your bad apples. You can declare “we” aren’t like “them,” but there seems to be no basis for “we” and “them.” The very fact that people in the IFB own Jack Schaap as their lunatic fringe proves that there is a feeling of connection, however small.

You can’t get rid of your bad apples, so you rather unsuccessfully attempt to distance yourselves. We in the PCA can get rid of them, and do; thus, we can convincingly say, “They’re not with us.” And, should the PCA ever fail to exercise its diligence, the negative results would be from a failure to carry out our church government. The problems in the IFB stem directly from its system of (non)government.

I find it odd. IFB people major on separation, while PCA people may never have heard of the word in an ecclesiastical context. Yet, IFB people have to spend tons more time dealing with, excusing, or confronting junk than PCA people do. I think there’s a problem in the system.

My estimation is that most who are rabid about “the label” probably would not regard me as one (a CAPITAL “F” FUNDAMENTALIST)

I’m OK with that

Susan,

I understand your point. But I don’t believe it is accurate to call what he have been talking about as the lunitc fringe. Both stories featured on 20/20 were not churches considered on the fringe. So this does put us all in a nasty position.

I see connections differently. I am not ‘connected’ to other homeschoolers simply because I homeschool. I share many common core beliefs with other homeschoolers, even pagan and LGBT homeschoolers, but I can’t distance myself from someone with whom I have no relationship whatsoever, and didn’t even knew they existed until they made headlines. And then, amongst homeschoolers, you’ve got your Charlotte Mason and Classical and unschooling and eclectic… I am using homeschooling as an example of how many very independent people can have similar beliefs but no binding connections. If I am not bound to someone, how do I break a bond?

IMO an underlying problem isn’t the informal, unaccountable connections, it is the immaturity and blindness of the average believer. The Hyles and Schaaps of the world couldn’t get a foothold without the ignorance of the laity. If we don’t evangelize AND disciple, then we’ve birthed babies, handed them a diaper bag, and said “Good luck, have a nice life!”

The second contributing factor is an excessive and misunderstood emphasis on separation. Separation was the ‘biggie’ that made Fundamentalism different back in the day (I know it’s an oversimplification, but bear with me). I think it is human nature to focus on what makes you ‘special’, and it is also human nature to go overboard with something you consider to be your strength. Someone with ambition and a predatory personality latches on to something like that, and Bob’s your uncle.

But let’s face it- why do so many people identify the fringe as defining IFBism? Is it because it is true of SO many churches? Or because the fringe has been exploited by the secular news media and even Christian publications? Then, because people are susceptible to the cult of personality worship, the weak-minded fall for their charm and charisma and ‘much fair speaking’. And then like bunny rabbits the weak propagate and create creatures like unto themselves by the churchload.

I don’t think a connectional church gov’t prevents any of the fringe from… fringing. There are simply too many denominations and religions with connectional gov’t that are just as screwed up as IFBism. Basically, I think it is a human nature problem and not an IFB problem. If you could just get rid of all the humans…

[rogercarlson] Susan,

I understand your point. But I don’t believe it is accurate to call what he have been talking about as the lunitc fringe. Both stories featured on 20/20 were not churches considered on the fringe. So this does put us all in a nasty position.

The example in the OP was Bauder and Schaap, not Phelps and Fuller and Olson. So that’s what I was responding to.

And yet again I will say that the atmosphere that allows for dysfunction is not because there aren’t enough laws or connections or policies or accountability, or the public school system would run like a dream. However, I agree wholeheartedly with much jumping up and down for emphasis that the very last place in the universe that there should be a victimization of the most vulnerable in our society is the church. However again- there is nothing new under the sun, or Paul wouldn’t have had to write much of the New Testament.

On “Independent”: Was the purpose of this term to indicate that a church was not a part of the SBC?

(I don’t see it used much in the North)

This is a fascinating thread. I have argued strongly on this site that the “Thinking-wing” of Fundamentalism is severely outnumbered by the lunatic fringe. Of course, many of them are NOT Fundamentalists, according to you in the “thinking-wing”. But they would say that you are not Fundamentalists.

That’s why, on the threads about the Child Molestation problem, I used the term “those who self-identify as Fundamentalists”.

The defining characteristic of Fundamentalism seems to be the ability to think “Everybody to the left of me is a liberal and everybody to the right of me is a lunatic.”

So, everybody, do a quick survey: go through your phone book. Of all of the churches in your phone book that say “Independent, Fundamental” or something like that, how many of them are churches you would choose to attend?

In our vicinity, I would consider the majority of them to be at least out of balance, if not blatantly unbiblical in various ways.

Here’s the question: If the core ideas that make up Fundamentalism are the best expression of the Christian faith, how is it the majority(?) of people who claim to embrace those ideas end up among the lunatics or uncomfortably close to them?

Those who are among the better Fundamentalists are usually ones that are being influenced by forces outside Fundamentalism. For example, Kevin Bauder has recently stated that his real commitment is to a “conservative” Christianity that predates and even contradicts Fundamentalism at crucial points. And, it’s not hard to see the influence of Reformed theology in his whole gestalt. Expository preaching made it into Fundamentalism largely from the outside. Just listen to Bible Conference sermons (or the counterpart at your preferred school) from 10 or 15 years back. Plurality of elders made it in from Reformed-ish Baptists.

So, here’s how I see it. Just about everything bad about Fundamental churches originated in Fundamental churches. Almost everything good about them they imported from outside. Why identify yourself with a movement that contributes overwhelmingly to the negative side of the equation? For the first time, I’m beginning to see the Fundamentalist doctrine of separation as a helpful thing. It at least keeps the craziness from contaminating other sections of the Church.

[Louise Dan] Mike and others, here’s the problem. While 20/20 highlighted Schaap and the Hyles gang a little, all three of the central stories involved ministries most of us here would not associate with the fringe lunatics. EVERY story was linked to BJU/Northland students or grads. Is there a thinking fundamentalist group here that considers THEM the fringe lunatics?

The IFB in question isn’t the fringe. It’s the hearty middle of the movement.

Louise, the reason I posted this the way I did is that the “Hyles gang” and others allow this stuff and cover it up at many times the rate of the thinking fundamentalist group. The 20/20 story is all the more tragic because it focused on one of the less extreme sub-sets within IFB. But, as I’ve stated in other related threads, these problems exist to one extent or another on a sliding scale, throughout much of Fundamentalism.

[Charlie] Here’s the question: If the core ideas that make up Fundamentalism are the best expression of the Christian faith, how is it the majority(?) of people who claim to embrace those ideas end up among the lunatics or uncomfortably close to them?

Those who are among the better Fundamentalists are usually ones that are being influenced by forces outside Fundamentalism. For example, Kevin Bauder has recently stated that his real commitment is to a “conservative” Christianity that predates and even contradicts Fundamentalism at crucial points. And, it’s not hard to see the influence of Reformed theology in his whole gestalt. Expository preaching made it into Fundamentalism largely from the outside. Just listen to Bible Conference sermons (or the counterpart at your preferred school) from 10 or 15 years back. Plurality of elders made it in from Reformed-ish Baptists.

So, here’s how I see it. Just about everything bad about Fundamental churches originated in Fundamental churches. Almost everything good about them they imported from outside. Why identify yourself with a movement that contributes overwhelmingly to the negative side of the equation? For the first time, I’m beginning to see the Fundamentalist doctrine of separation as a helpful thing. It at least keeps the craziness from contaminating other sections of the Church.

Charlie, I agree with you on many levels here. In answer to the question at the top of the page, I am not an IFB. I’m on SI because I fit the definition of fundamentalist (small f), and this movement is my roots. When people call and ask if my church is Fundamental, I find myself asking them about 20 questions before I dare answer. The primary sense in which I am a fundamentalist is that I consider the basic doctrines of the faith worth separating over. Secondarily, I am a fundamentalist in that I consider every area of life worth submitting to scrutiny based on Scripture.

With that as my perspective, my answer to your first question is quite simple: fundamentalism as a doctrinal concept (as in “The Funamentals of the faith matter”) was a great idea. Fundamentalism as a social construct, a movement, a collective, has proven to be a pretty bad idea, and has been guilty of at least tolerating if not producing many of the ills we talk about so frequently here on SI.

The “thinking wing” of Fundamentalism to which I refer is exemplified in men like Dr. Bauder, for one example. Though I disagree with him on where this Fundamentalism train is heading, I certainly respect his committment to true Biblicism.

So, everybody, do a quick survey: go through your phone book. Of all of the churches in your phone book that say “Independent, Fundamental” or something like that, how many of them are churches you would choose to attend?

Can’t think of one I haven’t visited except one that started last year, and they were all good churches with good reputations. And the church we recently left wasn’t Fundy. There’s another independent Baptist church in the area that folded recently due to abuse allegations, (all charges were just dropped, btw), but it wasn’t Fundy either.

I grew up ‘in’ IFBism, but we attended many churches when I was a kid (my dad loved to visit around), some Fundy and some not, and there were good and bad in each. The church I attended as a teen had some issues, but they were problems with naivete, not malice or false doctrine.

Since Fundamentalism is an idea, I just don’t see how an idea can be responsible for the actions of a few (comparatively speaking). What evidence do we have of this supposed ‘majority’ of kooks? Is it tangible, or is it perception? If it’s tangible, offer support; if it’s perception, how was it formed? How are we defining ‘fringe’ or ‘extremist’? I mean, I am fine with someone who is pretty far to the right and to the left until they cross into heresy, immorality, and ethics issues. That’s why I’d think of Schaap as an apostate and the Grand Poobah of Maniacs R Us. But until the jury is in, from what I’ve read of Phelps, I don’t think he fits the bill. I mean, occasionally exercising poor judgment is pretty much a foible of all mankind, but it’s when a pattern of behavior is formed that we get a truer picture of someone’s character and belief structure.

And while we are discussing fringiness, why aren’t we looking at the issues of churches in the NT? There were some major problems, and Paul didn’t toss these guys into a woodchipper, he corrected them. I don’t think we have to have a connectional church gov’t to accomplish this, since all believers are accountable one to another. I know of some pastors who will go to another pastor about problems he perceives and will try to find out the truth and restore them if needed. Do we really have to have a board of higher-ups to be accountable to? And will those in charge suddenly stop having to put their pants on one leg at a time?

I’m just not on board with the idea that a particular form of leadership somehow delivers us from the problems that arise from our sin nature, which just so happens to apply to every single person on the planet, Fundy or not.

Charlie, I don’t how you can seriously argue that “connectionalism” is the answer to keeping out heresy, wackos, etc. It really hasn’t worked for most every denomination and church group we could list, save a few (including the one you are a part of). So I really don’t think that’s the magical answer, do you?

Greg, I certainly don’t believe connectionalism is a magic answer. You’re exactly right about the problems in connectional churches. However, I consider connectionalism a necessary (or something pretty close to necessary, a few churches manage without it) condition of health; not a sufficient condition. For example, you can’t just drop connectionalism into Jack Schaap’s church and clean it up.

I’ve read several histories of the Presbyterian and Reformed churches in North America, and I found it interesting that one of the first things on the road to decline was not directly attacking the Bible, or soteriological inclusivism, or anything like that. It was a breakdown of discipline that resulted in practical congregationalism. In other words, the governmental structure of the denomination broke down before liberalization. So, many of the problems in now-liberal Reformed congregations can be attributed to a failure of governmental structure.

On the other hand, I believe that independent churches suffer from perennial problems directly traceable to their governmental structure. I think Mike Durning and a few others have pointed them out, although they may differ with me as to their cause. People with certain destructive behavior patterns - control issues, abuse, eccentric theology - will migrate to places in which they have the most control and the least liability to exposure. Ecclesiastically, that means single-elder, independent churches. The system creates a haven for abusers and other dysfunctional types to gain positions of authority.

By the way, Susan, at least in Presbyterian church government, there is no board of higher-ups. The Presbytery consists of the elders in a certain region, with a few of them elected into officer positions (moderator, clerk) to ensure smooth deliberation. The US legislative branch was modeled after Presbyterian government, to give you an example. So, I agree with you that no form of leadership can save us from our problems. Only Jesus can do that. But some systems of government function better than others, and some go farther than others toward creating healthy conditions.

For the past 5 years….I have distanced myself from my “roots” of being HAC IFB (IFBX) if you would. I have just stuck with the Word of God. I have alligned myself with pastors in the area to whom I have yeilded myself accountable and also to the church members who go to the extent of nitpicking all my blurps and misspeaks. I guess I am not Independent for doing so. I guess I am not Fundamental for not attacking the Bible debate and for enforcing my opinion on others.

when it comes to the flow of the service, we are ultra conservative in our music but then, we did schedule a guy who sings in Nashville and all over. So, what am I? I am Unaffiliated. I don’t travel to Mecca (Hammond) every year. I don’t flock to Sword Conference every year. I haven’t gone to a conference in some years. I have no desire to be measured by how many I forced through a stupid prayer or how many I “run” in my church. I care to be measured by how I live my life and by the example I set in balance with what I preach according to God’s Word.

I am INDEPENDENT of the Independent Fundamental Baptists. I still hold to my convictions and standards…as long as they are found by reading the Word of God and not looking for a manipulated verse to fit my opinions.

I can honestly say that this whole 20/20 thing is going to cause IFB to fix their appearance rather than their apathy.

I think there is much misunderstanding about what independence means. Does it mean I have no connection whatsoever with other people? That I bake my own bread, raise llamas and grow cotton to weave all of our clothing, and never speak to another living soul? We are all interdependent in some way with others, even those with whom we have no relationship or philosophical agreement. I ‘depend’ on Target, WalMart, Kroger, Meijer, Amazon.com… but what relationship do I really have with them as an entity? Do I ‘support’ pornography because I buy books from Amazon, or the substance abuse because Kroger also sells alcoholic beverages, prescription drugs, and cigarettes?

When we say ‘independent’ with references to IFB churches, it means that they are self-governing, and not part of any formal, overseeing association or fellowship. It doesn’t mean that they don’t get together with other churches to play ping-pong or host a meeting or raise money for a pressing need. It also doesn’t mean that church leadership can’t hold themselves personally accountable to other mature believers that they trust for wisdom and advice. If during regular interaction it becomes evident that there is dysfunction in a church, as brothers and sisters in Christ, that problem can and should be dealt with according to Scripture.

IMO, that the most relevant reason that a dysfunctional leader can create a following is when people don’t take responsibility for their own actions or spiritual growth, they don’t exercise spiritual discernment, and they remain willfully ignorant. You can’t do anything about those kind of people, just like the cops can’t press charges in domestic abuse cases on behalf of the abused. The abusee must be the one to take action. Not a single one of us can drive out to Hammond and disband that church. What would bring it down is if the members of the church started studying Scripture and forming a firm foundation of sound doctrine. Even a disassociation of other churches with Hammond (which should also take place) is not going have a significant enough effect without those who give time, money, and energy ending their support.

Whose fault is it really if a parent follows the advice of some preacher and beats their child to death? I mean seriously- did they not understand that murder is wrong? Does anyone with two brain cells to rub together think that it is Scriptural to cause permanent physical damage to a child because they didn’t finish eating their brussel sprouts? Can we just say that some people are nuts, and look for nuts to follow, and stop blaming people who do possess common sense for not ending all of the evils of the world?

My conclusion- The only power (power as defined in the context of this discussion) that people have over us is what we willingly give them.

Well this is interesting.

Using YellowPages.com i searched for ……

Independent Fundamental Baptist …. 0 results

But when I searched for Fundamental …. the # result was …

http://www.yellowpages.com/minneapolis-mn/churches-fundamental?g=Minnea…

Funny someone should ask - I mentioned it this morning on the Admin forums:

…I was chewing on all this yesterday and realized that I have started unconsciously referring to Fundys as “them” and not “me” or “us”; I don’t even know when that started. So I feel your concerns as well; even when ahead and changed my FB ‘philosophy’ from “____________” to “Christian” while I figure it all out. I don’t think the movement is coherent enough that there’s any point in identifying as such…and that’s oddly soothing in some way.

While I used to be a big proponent of being a “Fundamentalist”, I find that I’m increasingly turned off and frustrated by the ‘leadership’ (whatever that is) and the constant back scratching. Phelps’ derogatory remarks about Calvinism, Sweatt’s misguided and ill informed attacks on “Reformed” Christians at the FBF meeting and the consequent non-apology apology by the FBF leadership, the constant toleration of the KJVO/KJVI wing of Fundyism, most of the things that Jim Peet touched on in #2 - I can’t, in good conscience, be a part of. And I’m sick and tired of explaining that I’m a Fundamentalist but I’m not like THOSE wackos.

I’m a Fundamentalist at heart IF Fundyism remains the concept or idea that Fundamentalism is all about defending the clearly revealed, doctrinally orthodox positions that are necessary to Christianity. (24x7 creation, Literal hermeneutic, Inerrant Scriptures, Virgin Birth, Humanity/Deity of Christ, Substitutionary Atonement, etc). That being said, I find that I have far, far more in common with the rightward fringe of Evangelicalism and the few young Fundamentalists who are watching this semi-movement crash and burn around us than I do with BJU, HAC, or whomever is the leader in vogue. I’d rather be busy doing the work of the Lord - preaching, teaching, ministering, than worrying about who knows who and catching up on the latest edicts from HAC or BJU or wherever.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad for what I learned, even if I modified it later on to be more in line with how I see the Scripture. But I don’t see that it’s worth saving anymore, and I am not even sure that it ever was…maybe I was tilting at windmills like Don Quixote. All I know now is that I have to move forward under the command of my Lord and Master, and all the stupid bickering and infighting is pointless - a waste of energy, time and resources. I have to be faithful to what I’m called to do. So call me a Fundy, call me an Evangelical, call me an apostate - whatever. Time is too short for me to worry about the “Fundy” movement anymore, and anyone who’s serious about what actually goes on in the “movement” should see it as well.

[Louise Dan] Mike and others, here’s the problem. While 20/20 highlighted Schaap and the Hyles gang a little, all three of the central stories involved ministries most of us here would not associate with the fringe lunatics. EVERY story was linked to BJU/Northland students or grads. Is there a thinking fundamentalist group here that considers THEM the fringe lunatics?

The IFB in question isn’t the fringe. It’s the hearty middle of the movement.

While I’m sure that NBBC and BJU have turned out some real losers as pastors, if you honestly think that they use HAC materials for education and instruction on child discipline like we heard in the 20/20 video, then you are ill-informed. I doubt very highly that anyone would advocate the abusive tactics in BJU, NBBC, or any other decent school.

There’s wackos and wing nuts everywhere, and I know that some of them didn’t care what the school they were in taught because they’d already had their minds warped by Schaap and his ilk.

That might be true - but I’ve never heard anything of that kind of teaching (on disciplining your kids) at either NBBC or BJU. I don’t follow MCBC at all, so it’s possible that they do advocate something like that.If you’ll find the links and prove me wrong; I’ll admit I was wrong. But I’d be stunned if either school did advocate anything like this.

The preaching that I heard on the 20/20 video sounded like it was from Hyles-Schaap-HAC orbit. Did they give the names of the speakers whose audio was played? Or did they just give the audio?

As to the question…am I an ifb? Well when this came up Sunday I was asked “who are these people? We are nothing like them.”. By His grace, we will continue to nor be like that. So i pray that comtinues

This might be another thread all together but at this point, anything IFB does differently will just look like damage control and “a new paint job” on its already ruined public image. Jack Schaap gave his arrogant, childish rebuttal (missing the point of the broadcast on Friday PM) and used it to promote his platform of unethical, unloving, and ungodly self-righteousness. (I am saying this with a gut-wrenching pain in my…well…gut.)

Another pastor (one of the accused) actually stood up and confessed he was guilty of the crime.

I was out door knocking on Sat and faced immediate opposition to the whole thing. “YOU ARE ONE OF THEM….GET OFF OF MY PROPERTY AND NEVER COME BACK YOU CHILD MOLESTER”

Too bad he didn’t realize that I don’t even allow them to come to church the 2nd time. But, hey. Anything we do now is simply damage control. Is it possible to become INDEPENDENT of the INDEPENDENT Fundamental Baptists?

I would like to clarify one thing…..There is IFB and then there are Independent Fundumbmental Baptists….big difference.

Autonomy and Independence of the Local Church is a Baptist distinctive that predates the Fundamentalist movement.

Francis Wayland wrote , “A Baptist Church can not be represented.” Hence why Northern Baptists organized themselves along functional lines and not as a unitary whole until the early 1900s.

Hiscox noted “The decisions of Councils are only advisory.” (my paraphrase”

Hamilton Square Baptist Church of San Francisco was founded in 1881 as an independent congregation.

is independent, fundamental and baptist and not, I have been told, IFB. Who is the gate keeper that gets to decide who/what is or isn’t IFB?

Bill

Terms and labels are often difficult to use as they often convey different things to different people. In Texas the term Baptist may attract some people. In California it may cause some to have their dog leave an offering on your church lawn.

For 20 years I was the so called “Senior Pastor of a Baptist church that had the term Baptist in the name. Our statement of faith had the historic Baptist disctinctives. We were independent in that we had no formal ties with any fellowship or association. For about 10 years I sought fellowship at the regional IFCA gathrings where I had some friends. I later stopped and went to the local GARBC pastors lunches on Monday each month. We were on a main Blvd. and just 2 blocks from a freeway exit. Our church sign had the church Baptist name but below was the prominent theme “verse by verse Bible study for your life today.” This was my pulpit ministry emphasis and the emphasis for our SS classes and other weekly studies. Some who visited our church who had been in IFB churches never came back. We placed more emphasis on serious worship and in depth teaching than they were used to. Some wanted some yelling, pounding and the big invitations. I remember one couple who came to our evening service and was offended by our use of guitar. We attempted to be zealous in evangelism. We had a door to door visitation ministry every Saturday. We eventually visited every home in the immediate area. However, this made of increasingly aware of a fast growing Asian population in our area. This effected our drawing and ministering constituancy.

We were a Bible teaching Christian church with a Baptist label. We were evangelistic and taught on discernment and Biblical separation. However, we would not be considered IFB by some. We used the NASB in the pulpit and that was what I taught from. If someone were to ask me if we were Fundamentalist I would unashamedly say yes. If given a few minutes I would explain we were in agreement with the use of the label in a historic sense but not in agreement with the way the label is used by some churches.

My wife and I worshipped with Plymouth Brethren for a while in the late sixties and early seventies. I am not in agreement with them in many ways. However, in an attempt to be biblical I do not like the use of the term “church” and the use of clergy terms such as “Pastor.” I certainly believe in a “teaching presiding elder who does shepherd (Pastor). Such should be given proper esteem but not the kind that separates such an elder to be of a separate class or unapproachable and not able to be called into question. I also believe in the congregation as being the highest and final authority.

Our present church has Baptist distinctives in the constitution. However it does not have the word Baptist in the name and does not have the word church in the name. We also have a presiding elder but no one is called pastor.

So now to the bottom line. I am a Baptist and a Fundamentalist and our assembly is independent. However. All IFB churches in our immediate area really IFBX and are KJVO. I am not eager to hold forth the IFB label. None of them have Pastors who are associated with the IFBI.

There was one time in history when the US had both a Baptist President and a Baptist Vice President at the same time. This was with Clinton and Gore. Both were active in local southern Baptist churches before and during their run for the offices. This was the subject of a story in Newsweek magazine at the time. So all you who love the term Baptist as a label have prominent company.

With regard to the present internet gossip regarding immoral practices. Some immorality may come about due to the Clergy and so called layman separation giving the alleged “Pastor” too much prestige and elevation. He thinks he is special and so do some whom he encounters. He becomes tempted to take advantage of his given authority. I do think that some are compounding types of sin and overstating the overall situation. I thank God for the 99% of Pastors who uphold Christian morality. The term child abuse is proper when children are involved. However, the laws in many states do not recognize incidents involving those 13 and over as Pedophilia or child abuse but rather as aggravated sexual assault. Between ages 13 to 15 it is sexual assault. Sixteen and over are considered capable of consent. This is in most states but not all. There is some reality attached to these laws. Here in So. CA. most public schools have very low dress standards. You will see many 14 and 15 year olds dressed in short shorts, with tight and low tops, while in school, and worse out of school. They are in essence dressed like prostitutes. There are 14 and 15 year olds walking the streets as prostitutes. They are no longer children. Some are possible victims of abuse so on the streets. Some are from good homes but in rebellion and motivated by the media morals of the day. The point is 14 and 15 year olds may not be innocent children. This does not diminish the responsibility of Christians with regard to moral conduct. It does give churches a responsibility to understand the situation with regard to both parties. Of course Pedophilia always would be one sided with the victim being innocent.

[Jay C.] I’m a Fundamentalist at heart IF Fundyism remains the concept or idea that Fundamentalism is all about defending the clearly revealed, doctrinally orthodox positions that are necessary to Christianity. (24x7 creation, Literal hermeneutic, Inerrant Scriptures, Virgin Birth, Humanity/Deity of Christ, Substitutionary Atonement, etc). That being said, I find that I have far, far more in common with the rightward fringe of Evangelicalism and the few young Fundamentalists who are watching this semi-movement crash and burn around us than I do with BJU, HAC, or whomever is the leader in vogue. I’d rather be busy doing the work of the Lord - preaching, teaching, ministering, than worrying about who knows who and catching up on the latest edicts from HAC or BJU or wherever.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad for what I learned, even if I modified it later on to be more in line with how I see the Scripture. But I don’t see that it’s worth saving anymore, and I am not even sure that it ever was…maybe I was tilting at windmills like Don Quixote. All I know now is that I have to move forward under the command of my Lord and Master, and all the stupid bickering and infighting is pointless - a waste of energy, time and resources. I have to be faithful to what I’m called to do. So call me a Fundy, call me an Evangelical, call me an apostate - whatever. Time is too short for me to worry about the “Fundy” movement anymore, and anyone who’s serious about what actually goes on in the “movement” should see it as well.

The situation at Trinity in Concord hit hard, especially when it first came out. My wife and I were at The University at the same time Phelps and Olson were. We sat under the same teaching, heard the same chapel speakers. My mother was a member of Trinity for about a year before God called her home in August, 2000. Chuck Phelps came to the house to discuss funeral arrangements. Mom was comfortable there, in part, because a lot of friends from our home church in MA were members there. People I had known and loved since before I could remember were a part of that congregation. People who I had gone to high school with were members there. (I haven’t been there in 11 years, so I don’t know if those people are still there, but still…) I can’t help it: this is personal to me.

When it came out again on April 8, my heart was once again heavy, and it became the topic of discussion in the adult Bible study I teach each week. We are a Baptist church that is independent, and we hold to the fundamentals of the faith. I felt I needed to equip our people to respond should the issue come up. My Pastor is a member of my class (!), and asked me to share my burden with the entire church yesterday evening. I came to a similar conclusion as you did, Jay.

Ignoring, for the moment, the sensationalism of the 20/20 “report”, There are issues the IFB needs to recognize. Chief among them is the tendency to infighting. The theme verse for IFB churches could be TITUS 3: 10 A MAN THAT IS AN HERETICK AFTER THE FIRST AND SECOND ADMONITION REJECT… But what about TITUS 3:9 ¶BUT AVOID FOOLISH QUESTIONS, AND GENEALOGIES, AND CONTENTIONS, AND STRIVINGS ABOUT THE LAW; FOR THEY ARE UNPROFITABLE AND VAIN. We all too often see a man “taken in a fault”, and label him “heretick”. (Evidently, a heretic is anyone that doesn’t believe or practice exactly what *I* believe and practice.) But Paul instructed BRETHREN, IF A MAN BE OVERTAKEN IN A FAULT, YE WHICH ARE SPIRITUAL, RESTORE SUCH AN ONE IN THE SPIRIT OF MEEKNESS; CONSIDERING THYSELF, LEST THOU ALSO BE TEMPTED. BEAR YE ONE ANOTHER’S BURDENS, AND SO FULFIL THE LAW OF CHRIST. (GALATIANS 6:1-2)

Where is the restoration?

Where is the meekness?

Where are those who step under the burden with those men to help them through?

They are too busy “taking a stand”, and not nearly busy enough fulfilling the law of Christ.

With a broken heart, I observe that a lot of these men are more interested in fighting - ANYBODY (including their IFB bretheren) - than they are in edifying the body of Christ. I’m not interested in fighting with my brothers. I believe God instructed Paul to explain to us “a more excellent way.” (I Cor 12:31-13:13) And He gave us a new commandment in John 13:34-35.

This is a COMMANDMENT. Not an idea, not a philosophy, not a doctrine: A COMMANDMENT.

34 A NEW COMMANDMENT I GIVE UNTO YOU, THAT YE LOVE ONE ANOTHER; AS I HAVE LOVED YOU, THAT YE ALSO LOVE ONE ANOTHER.

35 BY THIS SHALL ALL MEN KNOW THAT YE ARE MY DISCIPLES, IF YE HAVE LOVE ONE TO ANOTHER

Why is it not a primary teaching of the IFB movement?

(I know. I’m a “heretick”.)

This has gone on much longer than I intended (Sorry!), and I need to help my wife with the kids. (Jack Schapp would be appalled!)

Grace and peace to you all, and may the love of Christ dwell richly in your hearts.

Rev Karl

The term IFB or “Independent Baptist” carries too much baggage these days and you will always have to qualify yourself saying I am not part of THAT IFB Group or whatever. We are a different sort of IFB - “Stop lumping us all together!”

The PCA gentleman illustrated this quite well!

Like it or not, the terms “IFB” or “Independent Baptist” mark you as part of a distinct culture within Christianity whether you care to call yourself a convention, sect, or whatever. If I see “Independent- Fundamental” on your church sign, I will probably assume you are part of that circus based up in Hammond, IN or some other “IFB Preecher Factory” where they are right proud of their biblical ignorance! If you put “AV1611” on your sign, you will remove all doubt and I will be sure to give you a wide berth and will keep close watch on my kids if you happen to be in my presence!!!

Now, if you want to continue calling yourself “IFB” then help yourself. Don’t come crying to me though when you are lumped in with all of the freaks and loonies though!

There is a good Baptist Church in my area that is not SBC or any other convention but they do not call themselves IFB either. Not sure what they are - they are reformed in their doctrine (doctrines of grace - calvinism), identify with the London Baptist Confession of 1646, and are orthodox preterists (where we disagree). By and large, they are a nice group of folks!