The Future of Fundamentalism: A Forum for Leaders

Kevin,

Wasn’t Wendell Kempton once chaplain for the Giants? And I know that Bill Edmonson used to be chaplain for the Patriots, though I’m not sure whether his membership was in a GARBC church at the time. But we (and the we is meant broadly) seem to grant somewhat wider boundaries for chaplaincies than we do for other kinds of ministries.

KTB

Kevin,

I will try to answer your questions as best I can. I belong to two fellowships, FBFI and IFBFM. The FBFI is a fellowship of individual pastors/parishioners and the IFBFM is a fellowship of churches. IFBFM behaves more consistently with Baptist principles of polity. All the churches vote on major initiatives each year. Most of our combined work revolves around the camp. We also have a Baptist Builders org. that assists in church planting and a youth org. that helps to organize some statewide youth rallies. The FBFI is run mostly by the executive committee consisting of the officers. We also have several other committees on the board which also contribute ideas and policy regarding the Frontline magazine, regional and national meetings, position statements, and the military chaplaincy. The majority of the power rests in the hands of the elected officers and the full-time president. We have two board meetings a year for the executive board and cooperative board. We discuss matters more openly now than in years past. The FBFI rank and file members virtually have no official voice other than private conversation with officers and board members. To what extent should Baptist polity be practiced by these orgs.? They are not churches; therefore, I don’t expect them to act just like a church in their government. In the spirit of a democratic consensus, the leaders should not act as if they were imperial kings or backroom politicians where all the key decisions are already made in smoke-filled rooms (visions of the SBC). My opinion is that the form here is less important than the substance of the leaders themselves. The best system with poor leaders will fail. A less than perfect system with a plurality of very good leaders will succeed.

Have we been vocal in our leadership? I confess that we have not been to the degree that we need to. People like Dever have filled the void left by us. Doran has probably done the best job in this area, but his conference is not that well-attended compared to the well-known CE conferences.

[Kevin T. Bauder] In response to your request that I “focus,” let me point you to the title of this conversation. It is not “The Future of Kevin Bauder.” It is “The Future of Fundamentalism.” Of course, my own future is tied to that of fundamentalism, but we are discussing the larger topic. Indeed, you may recall that I interrupted a planned presentation (I think you said you were looking forward to it) on what the FBFI could do to increase its chances of an effective future. I’ve already given you my first, and hinted at my second, recommendation.

This quote comes from your post #53703 Focusing … focusing … focusing

I don’t want to beat a dead horse (not too much anyway), so on this point I’ll just remind you that I am objecting to the line of discussion you have taken following the statement that you now wished to move to my suggestions about your approach with Conservative Evangelicals. Last time I checked, neither the FBFI or IFBF fell under that category.

You are of course free to discuss whatever you like, but it seems to me that you haven’t addressed the CE side of the question at all.

And I will reiterate that I am not against self-criticism in principle. The specific instance you mention here seems to me to be an unwarranted attack on men who aren’t part of this conversation and can’t really jump in to defend themselves and the basic complaint you raise fails to rise to any level of seriousness. When it takes as long to explain as your rationale for raising it… well, it’s not much of a complaint.

I’ll leave that point alone for now, I don’t think we need to continue going back and forth on this.

I’d like to answer some of the questions you posed to Mike.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

How about a strong, amillennial covenant Baptist like Peter Masters? This is not entirely an academic question. When I was a student at Faith, David Nettleton invited Masters to preach to the college. It raised some eyebrows (and some hackles).

One final question: to what extent do you believe that New Testament polity should be reflected in Baptist organization that extends beyond the church? Kevin Mungons pointed out the difference between associations and preacher’s fellowships. There are other models that Baptists have used. Is it possible to make a principled decision about which, if any, is superior?

I’d also like to hear Don’s response to these questions when he is able to get back to us.

Kevin

Peter Masters is a very interesting guy. I heard him preach at the Metropolitan Tabernacle last May, fantastic message. He also graciously took our family up to his office and showed us some of his memorabilia of Spurgeon. He mentioned that he had spoken at BJU in the past. Personally, I wouldn’t have too much of a problem with cooperating with him, although no doubt he would not preach on those areas where we had strong differences in our venues nor would we in his. (Not that I would ever expect such a thing to happen.)

With respect to the question about polity, I think Mike pretty well answered the question. I don’t see a need for organizations that aren’t local churches to follow NT local church polity. I don’t really see that the GARBC follows NT polity to any great degree more than the FBFI does. Both organizations respect local church autonomy, but beyond that, what elements of polity do you see in their structure?

Speaking of the GARBC, I recall that you spoke at their national meeting a year or two ago. Do you hold any office or role in the GARBC? Are you a messenger to the meeting? I notice that this year a couple of prominent educators from Independent circles are scheduled as a speaker and a workshop presenter.

Beyond the GARBC, do you hold any office (like a board membership) in any other organization that serves to promote the fundamentalist idea? I know you are a member of the FBFI, and of course serve at Central, but I wonder if you serve in other areas that I am unaware of.

I am currently in the midst of enjoying the Northwest Regional fellowship of the FBFI. We’ve had a good meeting with excellent preaching and attendance of pastors from all over Washington, some from Oregon, and some from British Columbia. Mike Harding is our main speaker. He is away from his computer while traveling (as usual) so can’t post here just now. He was on fire tonight in his preaching, though. Fantastic message on “Our Incomparable God”. Brought me to tears, it did.

I’ll have audio on Proclaim & Defend at some point, the church here doesn’t have digital recording equipment so it will take a little conversion process before I can get it up.

Don,

You’ve asked a couple of questions that probably deserve answers. It’s crunch time right now, but I’ll try to address them briefly.

First, I agree that not every parachurch organization needs to be structured like a church. Having said that, I think there are specific reasons for preferring some forms of organization to others, especially when an organization exists for generalized fellowship amongst Baptists. I see three main considerations.

First, if an organization says that it is a fellowship, then it ought to be. A fellowship is by definition something that is held in common. Within a fellowship, a fellow has a piece of the action. He or she is part of the decision-making process. Consequently, any organization that really means to exist for the purpose of fellowship ought to be controlled by its constituents (whether they are called members or something else). To “fellowship with” an organization ought to mean to have a voice in its operation.

Second, the New Testament teaches not only the autonomy of the church, but also the centrality of the church. If we really believe that God purposes to do His work primarily in and through churches, then our primary endeavors ought to be answerable to churches. This does not mean that all parachurch organization is wrong—you can find it in the New Testament. It does mean, however, that the larger the scale of a supposed fellowship, the more important it is to make it formally accountable to churches.

Third, the New Testament presents a very strong pattern of churches cooperating with churches. They worked together, cared for each other, and counseled one another. There is a place for individual fellowship(s), but the most important work ought to involve churches helping churches.

In other words, I think that New Testament principles ought to propel us in the direction of associationalism. Preacher’s fellowships and other organizations of individuals have a use as long as they are kept in their place, but they cannot replace the dynamic of churches cooperating with churches.

This is certainly a dynamic that has been grasped by some Fundamentalist Baptists. What is now the GARBC first organized with individual membership (1923-1932), but made a principled decision to restructure as a church fellowship. The NTAIBC experienced considerable debate over this question at Beth Eden and the Eagledale, then for a year or two afterward. But it, too, made a principled decision to organize as a church fellowship. I think those were good decisions.

The organization that is now the FBFI made the opposite decision. While it was never a church fellowship, it had been controlled by its members for decades. The control was taken away from the members and placed in the hands of a self-perpetuating board. There were reasons, to be sure. I’m just not convinced that they were good reasons.

The WBF and BBF both reflect the Norris mentality. Power is concentrated in the hands of the pastors, usually in the churches and certainly in the fellowships. The same was true of the churches in the SWBF (which was never much more than a meeting for preaching).

There are several strong state and local associations of Baptist churches. The Hebron Association around Cleveland is a close-knit fellowship. Among Regular Baptists, I know that the Iowa, Mid-Continent, and Il-Mo associations offer good fellowship. From what I’ve seen the same is true of Wisconsin, though the Regular Baptist fellowship there is smaller than the Wisconsin Fellowship of Baptist Churches. Minnesota has a small but vigorous Regular Baptist association as well as the Minnesota Baptist Association—and the two are on better terms than ever.

No mode of extra-church organization is without problems. In church associations, however, those problems have a chance of getting worked out between churches rather than simply between leaders. I don’t think it’s any accident that the preponderance of cranks and power mongers within Fundamentalism have gravitated toward preacher’s fellowships or executive-run organizations.

As for your second question, yes, I have sometimes served on boards. When I was president at Central Seminary I served on the board of the American Association of Christian Colleges and Seminaries. In fact, I was president of the AACCS for two years. I presently serve on the board of the Minnesota Baptist Association (this is an elected position, not an appointment). I’m also on the board of reference for Deo Cantamus (no authority, I just lend them my name). And I serve on the board of Religious Affections Ministries.

I left the presidency of the AACCS because I felt I could not do it justice. Frankly, I don’t make a very good board member. If the “trellis and vine” analogy means anything, I’m much more a “vine” kind of person, while a board needs strong “trellis” people. Furthermore, I’m allergic to institutional politics and powerplays. Ideas are worth fighting for, but humanly-invented institutions usually aren’t.

Your note seems to be a thinly veiled criticism of the FBFI vs. the GARBC. There are strengths to a denominational structure, especially with respect to financing missions, publishing houses, and possibly colleges. The weakness of the denominational structure is that you become ensnared in a denominational political machine which historically has created situations where denominational institutions (mission boards, publishing houses, colleges [e.g. Cedarville] ) become entrenched with little accountability to local churches. Qhite frankly, there are problems with both structures. We have to do the best we can with the resources we have available.

Personally, I find it easier to promote fundamentalism through independent churches and genuine personal fellowship of individuals. I guess you don’t, from what you say.

You did say some things that were kind of interesting at the end of your last piece:

[Kevin T. Bauder]

As for your second question, yes, I have sometimes served on boards. When I was president at Central Seminary I served on the board of the American Association of Christian Colleges and Seminaries. In fact, I was president of the AACCS for two years. I presently serve on the board of the Minnesota Baptist Association (this is an elected position, not an appointment). I’m also on the board of reference for Deo Cantamus (no authority, I just lend them my name). And I serve on the board of Religious Affections Ministries.

I left the presidency of the AACCS because I felt I could not do it justice. Frankly, I don’t make a very good board member. If the “trellis and vine” analogy means anything, I’m much more a “vine” kind of person, while a board needs strong “trellis” people. Furthermore, I’m allergic to institutional politics and powerplays. Ideas are worth fighting for, but humanly-invented institutions usually aren’t.

When you say you are more of a “vine” type person, I wanted to be sure of what you meant. I looked up “Trellis and Vine” on the internet and saw references to a book by that name. Is that what you are referring to? One reviewer described it this way:

The main idea of ‘The Trellis and the Vine’ is an analogy between local church ministry and growing a vine. The ‘trellis’ corresponds to administration and structures, the ‘vine’ to the spiritual growth and life of Christians. The point is to counteract our common tendency to work on the trellis and neglect to work on the growth of the vine.

Then I looked for other definitions of vine and found this one on freedictionary.com:

A weak-stemmed plant that derives its support from climbing, twining, or creeping along a surface.

That one sounds kind of parasitic to me. I guess that wasn’t what you mean.

In any case, I think it is better to use Biblical analogies for the church if we are going to talk about church work. The vine analogy is used by the Lord to talk about our personal relationship to him. I can’t think of anywhere that it is used of the church.

One of the main metaphors for the church is the idea of a building - chief cornerstone, foundation stones, living stones. We are to build on the foundation, using the living stones of INDIVIDUALS, building an edifice for God’s glory.

I wonder what you mean when you say “Frankly, I don’t make a very good board member.” Is that a virtue? Every building project I’ve ever been on required team work. That would be individuals, working together, to construct something.

We have a great idea in fundamentalism - I believe it is biblical Christianity. But we need more than an idea. We need individuals joining in the work. I am glad to work with other individuals as part of a team, trying to promote biblical Christianity in any way I can.

Dear Brethren,

I want to thank you for the invitation to join this discussion, and apologize for the length of time it has taken me to actually offer a contribution after agreeing to do so.

Let me say at the outset that both my perspective and my participation may be limited. I do not possess knowledge or experience concerning many of the organizations being referenced. Having come through what I saw described in the thread as the Fundamental Baptist/BJU/Wilds orbit, I do have some familiarity with the major personalities in those circles stemming from the 1970s and 1980s. My adult ministry has been confined to the Free Presbyterian Church. I should also say that I do not speak for every minister or elder in my presbytery. Similar discussions about Conservative Evangelicals currently exist within our own body.

Of the contributors I should say that I know Kevin (having enjoyed several interactions with him over the last decade). I have met Mike (as he mentioned in the thread). My only knowledge of Don has come through reading the thread.

Here is a summary of my understanding of the conversation thus far:

1) There is an underlying given to the situation: Fundamentalism is losing an inordinate amount of young men to the Conservative Evangelical orbit, thus the major question of the Future of Fundamentalism.

2) Kevin has spoken objectively and openly about the problem. His observations have included a willingness to speak publically about the strengths of Conservative Evangelicals in areas where they are doing good work and where some Historic Fundamentalists would be in agreement with their teaching. He has not ignored their problems. He has suggested that Fundamentalism would be better served by confronting its own problems/sins as aggressively as it has been willing to confront the problems/sins of the Evangelicals. He has also defended and engaged in differing levels of fellowship outside of the local church/denominational setting.

3) Don is concerned that Kevin’s outspokenness is contributing to the problem and has asked him to reconsider his methodology. (Defining the specific parts or nature of the outspokenness that Don finds objectionable has occupied a considerable part of the discussion thus far. Kevin wanted to discover the impersonal root principles Don was concerned about).

4) Mike is appreciative of Kevin, and others like him, and believes they are seeking to help Fundamentalism by their methodology even if some Fundamentalists would not necessarily do everything Kevin is doing.

Perhaps I have been overly general. That may characterize my contributions. I’m a big picture guy more than a name and date guy.

My initial observations contain an element that will almost certainly appear partisan and touch areas where I will most likely be in disagreement theologically with all of the other participants, so I must ask for understanding and patience as I contribute. That partisan fact, however, will play a major part in my initial comments. My contribution below will address an element Kevin has touched upon before that is not prominent in the current thread, but I believe it is most relevant to the larger topic of the future of Fundamentalism. I do not introduce what follows in an attempt to draw out debate concerning the doctrines where we may disagree, but nonetheless I believe the fact of these doctrinal disagreements deserves a place at the table in this discussion.

If I could first offer some general categories to the discussion as I see it…I will call them Associational, Attitudinal, and Theological. What I describe as associational matters obviously have the major principle of separation in view. (Perhaps one crux of the situation is the difficulty of how men who agree on that scriptural principle, as Fundamentalists, may yet disagree on how and where to apply that principle). Offering just one comment in this large category, I would say that we must admit the fact that many young men are willing to move “left” on this principle, at least as it has been taught by the main line Fundamentalism of the recent past, with their eyes open. My observation would be that we cannot categorically criticize these men who are leaving Fundamentalism for doing so in an unprincipled way. Some doubtless may be doing so with a reactionary spirit or with degrees of rebellion on board. But others are doubtless moving “left” more deliberately. There are simply other principles in view that they are using to trump the principle of separation (or perhaps, as they see it, merely the principle of separation as applied by their former leaders).

Secondly, I would suggest that there are attitudinal matters that play a major role in this problem. Perhaps this has occupied the largest part of the thread thus far. I would probably come down on Kevin’s side of this one. It’s possible to do the right thing in the wrong way and thereby give a bad name to a good principle. (It’s also possible even to do some wrong things and excuse them under the banner of the good principle of separatism, hence many of the problems of Fundamentalism). I have preached often that scripture demands at times that we separate from those who are true Brethren, but we should never enjoy it and never become or even appear to become self-righteous in our exercise of it. In matters of personal actions, demeanor, and integrity, it is entirely possible for Evangelicals, who may err on some principles of separation, to excel beyond some Fundamentalists who rightly maintain the principle of separation. This can even affect the content and depth of their teaching. This certainly does not help the separatist cause. (I remember hearing a Bible Conference speaker during my years at BJU once say that he knew some New Evangelicals that he liked better than some of his Fundamentalist colleagues. That really brought a hush to a large room). I should also add the observation here that young Fundamentalists who have been put off by attitudinal problems they have observed within Fundamentalism should not entertain the delusion that Evangelical circles are entirely devoid of political maneuverings, personality conflicts, and attitudinal problems of their own. The Flesh does not observe ecclesiastical boundaries.

Thirdly, I would suggest that the discussion to this point has in my opinion omitted an important element—the theological matters that are in play currently. It cannot be overlooked that a common thread linking the most popular Conservative Evangelicals today is the resurgence of Reformed or Calvinistic theology. (This is true even of MacArthur’s “leaky Dispensationalism.” It is certainly true of those he has chosen to openly associate with in more recent years). In the evolution of the Fundamentalist movement, what began as an interdenominational movement in response to Liberalism, thus containing Reformed partisans, came to be dominated by the Dispensational/Baptistic party. Young men growing up in Fundamentalism who became interested in Reformed doctrine were then faced with a dilemma: “I can either be a Fundamentalist or be Reformed.” A century ago this would not have happened. A Reformed presence was gradually pushed outside the American Fundamentalist movement. (I found a happy haven within the originally European Free Presbyterian denomination). While Dispensationalism certainly had a presence within the Evangelical orbit, it was within the Evangelical orbit that the mid-20th century renaissance of Reformed theology began. The late 20th century brought the prominence of some articulate Bible teachers on the radio, along with some significant contributions in written and reprinted form (ala Banner of Truth, etc.), as well as the burgeoning internet media, thus allowing this renaissance to spread further as some Fundamentalists began to explore this newly rediscovered world safely and quietly. Some have entered that new world without sounding bells or whistles and remain within their Fundamentalist habitat, but many were convinced enough to make an open move theologically that was frowned upon by the majority of Fundamentalists, but they were so persuaded of the Reformed system (or some version thereof), that they were willing to break with former ties in order to fully embrace it. Other things, and some things that even as a Reformed minister I would disagree upon (i.e. music and some lifestyle choices), they came to see as secondary to their newfound theological views. Since Fundamentalism, as it had evolved, provided no apparent channel for the expression of their views they have chosen to move outside the camp even if it meant picking up new (or different) baggage. Sadly, (and it took me some time to actually be persuaded of this), some Fundamentalist leaders have been so antagonistic to any form of Calvinism, they have been happy enough to see these men leave the movement. I do not think this theological reality can be ignored as a significant factor in the current decline of Fundamentalism. Until Fundamentalism can genuinely welcome and allow the expression of views other than the Dispensational/Baptistic variety, I think the exodus will continue. Any future for separatism must include this as part of the discussion.

I apologize for the length and perhaps the uncomfortable nature of my initial comments, but as the thread has already displayed, hard times call for hard discussions. May they be pursued with charity and grace.

–Reggie Kimbro

Reggie,

Good to hear from you. It has been a long time. Are you pastoring a church or teaching somewhere? Regarding the doctrinal tensions you spoke of in your last post, I agree that there are some real tensions between many of the dispensational Baptists and the young Calvinists. Based on the majors confessions of faith, it can be demonstrated that Baptists have had Calvinistic theology in their history. I recently read the doctrinal statement and Constitution of a large church in the FBFI and it was both strongly dispensational and Calvinistic. I am somewhat amazed that men with undergraduate and graduate degrees in the school of religion don’t recognize or admit this candidly. I know these tensions exist in the SBC as well. Just look at the differences between Paige Patterson and Al Mohler. Thus, though the tensions exist in my brand of the fundamentalist movement, they also exist elsewhere. As a strong dispensationalist, I have been Calvinistic in my preaching for decades. As a result, we have quite a number of young Baptist fundamentalists who have identified with our church and are serving God today as missionaries, pastors, and Christian school teachers. They are not hyper-Calvinisitic in doctrine or attitude. I think that is important. Was it Carl Truman who said that if a man becomes a Calvinist, you need to lock him up for about two years? I do not consider myself reformed in ecclesiology or eschatology or hermeneutics, thus I do not take or accept the reformed label. I also believe that the so-called “shibboleths” of fundamentalism are still important—music, alcohol consumption, dress standards, smoking, restrictions on certain kinds of popular entertainment. My goal is to strengthen fundamentalism where we are weak, but not throw out the areas where we have been strong. I may be beating a dead horse, but as H. Robinson once said, “No horse is too dead to beat.”

Mike,

Good to hear from you again too. And the answer to both questions is yes. I’m a full time minister at my church and teach as an adjunct at Geneva Reformed Seminary (usually one 2-3 week module a year).

I may get back to you on the issue of hermeneutics you mention, but for now I would like to ask Kevin to weigh in on his understanding of Machen’s relationship to Fundamentalism in its current expressions. Also, I wonder if the OPC/BP split by McIntire may have had an impact on the willingness of American Presbyterians to identify with Fundamentalism. (The gulf I point out between Fundamentalism and the Reformed faith may have included more of a mutual agreement to part ways than I indicate in my last post. I wonder if some ‘attitudinal’ issues might have been in play at the time).

I do not deny your observation that the tension between Calvinistic and non-Calvinistic theologies exists in other circles besides Fundamentalism. There has been a recent push back against resurgent Calvinism in the SBC. My point is that modern Fundamentalists, largely, have not been willing to allow a similar presence in their movement, thus those with openly Reformed convictions usually must look elsewhere for ecclesiastical identity. (Unless they want to look at Free Presbyterianism)! This is also largely true of those who identify with Baptistic Calvinism (in its full “5-Point”) expression but who do not prefer the title “Reformed,” and even those who take the title “Reformed Baptists.” They usually see themselves moving outside of Fundamentalism.

Don,

My apologies for failing to respond in a timely fashion. Even how I have time only for the sketchiest of replies. But here goes.

No, my point was not to argue for the GARBC at the expense of the FBFI, though I do have a decided preference for structures that recognize not only the autonomy, but also the centrality, of the local church of the New Testament. I was particularly amused by your description of the problems with “denominations,” for multiple reasons. First, the FBFI has as much claim to be called a denomination as the GARBC. Second, the specific things to which you object (e.g., dominance of institutions, lack of accountability, political machinations) are among the most central critiques that can be offered of the FBFI itself, particularly in terms of its historical record.

As you note, there is no organizational panacea (I devote a whole chapter to this discussion in my volume on Baptist distinctives). Either we work with flawed structures or we don’t work together at all. Knowing that, however, should not stop us from constantly asking how our structures could be better.

Both the GARBC and the FBFI have made significant structural alterations during their history. The FBFI started out as an individual fellowship and moved toward being an executive-driven organization. During the 1980s you couldn’t even become a member of the FBFI, you could only “identify with” it. Even now, membership is essentially a subscription to the magazine. I can’t tell that it really means anything to be a member of FBFI. I’ve never even got a secret decoder ring.

The GARBC went in exactly the opposite direction. While always a fellowship of churches, the association originally functioned with a president, vice president, and executive committee. After Ketcham was elected president repeatedly, he foresaw the possibility of one individual coming to exert too much influence within the organization. The structure was deliberately modifed to a Council of Fourteen (later eighteen) who were to carry out the wishes of the fellowship. I believe that even now the constitution places restrictions upon the number of years that an individual can serve consecutively on the C-18.

The National Representative is not even an officer. As Donald Brong once put it, he is not the head of the association, but its feet. Neither he nor any other employee of the association is allowed a vote in its business. I can still remember when the chairman of the council asked Paul Tassell to chair a meeting in Ames, Iowa. A point of order was raised from the floor and a non-employee was instantly chosen to occupy the chair instead.

How would the FBFI be different if no board member could serve longer than four years without having to take a sabbatical?

How would the FBFI be different if the board and officers were elected by the members rather than by themselves?

To me, these are interesting questions to ponder.

Again, it’s not so much about the GARBC as it is about the principle of the centrality of the local church. Other organizations besides the GARBC have recognized this principle (e.g., the WFBC, the NTAIBC, the IFBAM, the MBA)

Now, for the question with which you close. When I say that I do not make a very good board member, I do not consider that a virtue. It is a weakness. I honor those who possess both the interest and the organizational and administrative skills to function well on boards. What I lack is the interest.

I quite agree with you about employing biblical analogies when describing the church. It is a body, a bride, a nation, a priesthood, a flock (not a fold), a building. What I would question is the legitimacy of applying church analogies to parachurch institutions. The less centered upon the church these institutions are, the less appropriate the analogies become, no?

Kevin

[Kevin T. Bauder]

As you note, there is no organizational panacea (I devote a whole chapter to this discussion in my volume on Baptist distinctives). Either we work with flawed structures or we don’t work together at all. Knowing that, however, should not stop us from constantly asking how our structures could be better.

Fair enough.

[Kevin T. Bauder] Even now, membership is essentially a subscription to the magazine. I can’t tell that it really means anything to be a member of FBFI. I’ve never even got a secret decoder ring.

I’ll see if we can arrange getting one to you.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

How would the FBFI be different if no board member could serve longer than four years without having to take a sabbatical?

How would the FBFI be different if the board and officers were elected by the members rather than by themselves?

To me, these are interesting questions to ponder.

I think you would change the entire idea of the organization, without a doubt. I think that the organization has a reason to exist as is, but that reason would disappear by making changes like this. Organizations of this kind are already available (example: GARBC). For those who wish to participate in such organizations, there are plenty of them around. I don’t see a need for duplication.

I should note that I am expressing my own opinion here, I do NOT speak for the FBFI.

Beyond my statement in the paragraph above, however, I am not sure what else to say. I don’t plan to say anything further on those questions at the moment.

[Kevin T. Bauder]

Now, for the question with which you close. When I say that I do not make a very good board member, I do not consider that a virtue. It is a weakness. I honor those who possess both the interest and the organizational and administrative skills to function well on boards. What I lack is the interest.

I quite agree with you about employing biblical analogies when describing the church. It is a body, a bride, a nation, a priesthood, a flock (not a fold), a building. What I would question is the legitimacy of applying church analogies to parachurch institutions. The less centered upon the church these institutions are, the less appropriate the analogies become, no?

I agree on the last sentence for sure.

Interesting comment in the first paragraph - We all only have so much time and energy to invest in the cause of Christ. We have to decide where best to invest it.

Last, in this thread, at this point we seem to be meandering around a bit. Hopefully we can get things together in a new discussion that will regain a focus (for a while, at least) and be profitable to those who read.