"if the IFB movement is to have any future ... they are going to have to move toward an elder-rule, accountability-focused leadership style"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/huge-tree-crashes-int…

The tree was dead along time ago …. waiting to fall

Image from the article

Haven’t posted in a long time, but this seems worthy of pointing out: (1) that it is wrong, from my vantage point, to equate Hammond with the IFB movement since there are more folks who won’t have anything to do with Hammond than will (thankfully); and (2) to call for elder rule as an antidote to the stuff at Hammond seems very odd—the lack of congregational gov’t in places like Hammond is a significant part of the problem there.

Who said:

… that it is wrong, from my vantage point, to equate Hammond with the IFB movement since there are more folks who won’t have anything to do with Hammond than will (thankfully);

Twasn’t but 2 short years ago: Together for the Gospel: Jack Schaap & John Vaughn ??

Some of the older links are broken but these this one is not and still relevant: Paleo on peculiar fundamentalist alliances

Seldom do peculiar fundamentalist alliances surprise me, but I have to say I never saw this one coming. With little regret, I’ll confess ignorance about most of the names on this list, but Jack Schaap (son-in-law and heir to the Jack Hyles kingdom), Jack Trieber (legendary California KJV-thumper), and John Vaughn (president of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship) by themselves make a perplexing coalition. Big thanks to Dave Doran for posting the above link. Though appalling, it’s certainly informative. I’ll let his words kickstart the conversation:

The ministries of men like Fugate and Schaap are blights on the cause of Christ and should not be welcomed by anyone with an earnest commitment to biblical theology and ministry. I know that is a strong statement, but the former has abandoned the biblical doctrine of inspiration and the latter presides over a bizarre sideshow of theological quirks and ministerial abuses. Calls to separate from unbelief and ungodliness ring hollow when glaring errors like these are ignored.

My own take is that what I would call the “reasonable fundamentalists” (and I would include you in this group) are a small minority in the larger IBF movement.

The link to the speakers is now broken but Jay noted then: “the staff evangelist for BJU AND the President of the FBF are going to be there”

to call for elder rule as an antidote to the stuff at Hammond seems very odd

Don’t know if this is the case here, but some people say “elder-rule” when they mean simply “plurality of elders”.

There are successful Godly churches with different forms of church government!

I think the issue is accountability. Schaap and others of this type have built kingdoms and installed themselves as kings with no accountability to anyone … until they get caught and the police step in.

Yes, I don’t mean elder rule so much as mutual accountability in a plurality of leaders. Someone on the comments under my article made a similar point and I responded with the following. It might help clarify where I was coming from:

As a rule, these kinds of things are not self-disclosed in IFB circles. So you have a point. What we have here, though, is another case of a leader in an IFB church abusing his position of power. FBC Hammond did the right thing, and I’m hoping that they rethink their leadership structure going forward.

It is not so much multiple elders that is the cure all, as it is mutual accountability. The RC model is very top-down in how it implements elders. I’m thinking of pastor-elders in a chruch being on a level playing ground and holding one another in check and accountable.

In general, this doesn’t happen very often or very well in IFB churches. The same could be said of other church groups too. And there are excellent exceptions to the rule.

I’m saying that to prevent these kinds of things going forward, the IFB movement should have less of an emphasis on men and more care in how the leadership is structured. But yes, this won’t eliminate sin as being the problem. It will help the churches find that sin before it escalates to such levels, perhaps.

There are multiple problems in this sector of the IFB movement, in my book. My site tries to address those. But again, there are problems everywhere and in every heart. My solution is not to throw all IFBs under the bus or to walk away and never come back. It varies by individual situation. I think care is needed in dealing with this issue. For some, leaving the IFB movement is needed. But I hope that many churches and people in the IFB movement change for the better. I think if you spend some time at my site you’ll see I’m not entirely anti-IFB. There are positive things that fundamentalists have brought Christianity as a whole, and I’m thankful for them. I see, and I think many others see, that the movement as a whole is at a tipping point. Aiming toward mutual accountability and plurality in leadership would be one positive way forward.

This is just one part of the IFB movement. I don’t mean to dismiss all IFBs. Reading the comments of my post indicate that. But I do think that this sector of the IFB movement is larger than many on SI think or admit. And is anyone disputing the fact that FBC of Hammond is the largest IFB church? And arent’ most of the large IFB churches of this stripe (more or less)?

Anyways, there is a lot that could be said about this, but we don’t know all the facts yet. I do pray that FBC may turn a corner with this latest scandal. Wouldn’t that be wonderful if a qualified man was chosen as pastor and they rethought a lot of the things they do over there? Here’s hoping.

[DavidO] Don’t know if this is the case here, but some people say “elder-rule” when they mean simply “plurality of elders”.

And is anyone disputing the fact that FBC of Hammond is the largest IFB church? And arent’ most of the large IFB churches of this stripe (more or less)?

I think a good question to ask is how they built these mini-empires. Seems to me it’s been on the backs of the poor, the lost, the emotionally needy, and the spiritually immature.

Just because more people eat at McDonald’s than at Olive Garden doesn’t mean McDonald’s defines what is and isn’t good nutrition or a quality restaurant. It’s cheap and easy and momentarily satisfies a craving. Therefore people flock to it. Hyles-like churches follow his methods a la the Sunday School Manual etc… and it’s heavy on marketing and bait-and-switch tactics, so they pack ‘em in. Don’t mean nothing to me except that people prefer junk food.

to drop McDonalds to the level of FBC Hammond. :)

I’m fairly certain Tri-City Baptist, Chandler (Metro-Pheonix), AZ isn’t.

[Bob Hayton]

SNIP

This is just one part of the IFB movement. I don’t mean to dismiss all IFBs. Reading the comments of my post indicate that. But I do think that this sector of the IFB movement is larger than many on SI think or admit. And is anyone disputing the fact that FBC of Hammond is the largest IFB church? And aren’t most of the large IFB churches of this stripe (more or less)? SNIP

I have thought about and watched more of Jack Schaap in the last two days than I ever had previously.

The fakey Southern voice, the talking-so-fast-you-can’t-understand, the dropping of the Bible on the pulpit (all seen within a few seconds on the news clip referenced)… It turns my stomach, frankly.

I’m stunned to think back on how much closer many in our “IFB camp” were to this kind of nonsense just 20 years ago – and how much closer some remain to this very day. May God help us, and may He turn this incident into a winnowing process that further separates true “fundamentalists” from this kind of absurdity.

Yes, we need to consider how church government structures and refinements can help us prevent or deter these types of situations.

But even beyond that, my hope is that the Biblicist wing of “IFB-dom,” seeing this unfold, will mature and go further in the direction it seems to be heading down – being willing to overlook even more of what I consider to be petty differences with others with whom they have far more in common than they ever did (or should have) with the likes of Schaap.

May God give us grace and wisdom for these closing days of the church age.

[Dave Doran]

Haven’t posted in a long time, but this seems worthy of pointing out: (1) that it is wrong, from my vantage point, to equate Hammond with the IFB movement since there are more folks who won’t have anything to do with Hammond than will (thankfully); and (2) to call for elder rule as an antidote to the stuff at Hammond seems very odd—the lack of congregational gov’t in places like Hammond is a significant part of the problem there.

The Hammond style of IFB has their corruption of which the “rest of us” have distanced ourselves…but the “rest of us” are just merely guilty of being powerless and irrelevant to the rest of the world, but hey…at least we’re separated and clean. The truth is, we are all guilty in one way or another of contributing to the demise of Christianity in our culture. We need real revival or else we will remain to be as Hezekiah put it: “an object of horror” to the rest of the world.

William,

Unless you are planning to instigate revival in your own power, you paint with too broad a brush when you accuse all believers of being powerless, irrelevant, and guilty of the demise of Christianity in our culture.