FBFI "Why we are still here"

[Jim]

dgszweda wrote:

Is this all the FBFI membership is? 444 members?

I had heard, 2 months ago, under 600 (from a seminary professor in the know)

This is crazy. Why do we put so much credence in a fringe group?

I suspect most of the FBFI members are Pastors or fundamentalist leaders, meaning the organization has a disproportional influence relative to its raw numbers. It is a significant force in Baptist fundamentalism because of who its members are, and because of inertia (e.g. its been influential for a while, so its still influential now, because that’s the way it’s “always” been).

I suspect its influence will continue to wane. I doubt the younger generation of fundamentalist leaders really see a reason to continue membership. Perhaps this Frontline edition will change my mind.

There is a real disconnect between the older generation and the younger, and I’ve struggled to explain it - but everybody knows its there. For example:

  • When the FBFI put out it’s now-infamous edition last year on “Convergence,” it framed the issue as (in effect) a betrayal of fundamentalism, a betrayal of a movement.
  • When I was at the Good Friday service which I described above, “fundamentalism” never entered my mind. I wasn’t upset because this church clearly wasn’t fundamentalist anymore. I was upset because it was disgracing God and basically displaying blasphemy by its flippant attitude and approach to evangelism and the Resurrection.
  • Hear this - I’m not trying to frame myself as being pious. I’m trying to point out a fundamental divide - I don’t “self-identify” (for lack of a better phrase) as a fundamentalist first. It didn’t cross my mind to be outraged over this church’s betrayal of a fundamentalist mindset and philosophy to ministry. I was outraged by other things.
  • Later, as we walked to our car, I thought about fundamentalism. But, it wasn’t my first thought, and it isn’t my real objection even now.

I think this is a critical difference, and perhaps I’m not alone in seeing this. It’s just not about the “movement” for me. If the FBFI had framed the issue differently, perhaps it would have received a better response. Was that a tactical mistake, or does it reveal that the FBFI really operates and thinks differently than I do? I have no idea.

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

I don’t have much time for comment today, and haven’t had much to say in response to this thread, but I do want to make a comment on numbers, before I dash out the door.

The FBFI is a fellowship of individuals, not of churches. Often there is only one member in a church. I suspect there is some overlap in some cases more than one member per church, but not a lot. But let’s set the overlap number at 25%: 444-25%=333. If each of 333 represents churches of like mind of say 50 members each (that’s probably low) then these numbers represent at least 16,650 people.

Not that it matters. We aren’t counting noses, we are putting out a message: “proclaiming and defending”! (to coin a phrase!) Overall, the numbers the FBFI represents is small, it is true, especially compared to, say, the SBC. However, we are who we are and we do our best to get our message out. We think it is important. We’re grateful for the folks who contributed to this particular issue and hope we hear from them again. Most of them are first-timers in FrontLine, but I’ll say more about that later. For now, I’m off. Duty calls.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Not only does FBFI have a reach into churches that is greater than their stated membership, but they also are representative of a lot of “sister” organizations which have similar (but not identical) positions. Couple that with members in influential positions, and they’re going to have influence disproportional to their size.

Now if only they’d define their terms…… :^)

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[Bert Perry]

Not only does FBFI have a reach into churches that is greater than their stated membership, but they also are representative of a lot of “sister” organizations which have similar (but not identical) positions. Couple that with members in influential positions, and they’re going to have influence disproportional to their size.

Now if only they’d define their terms…… :^)

Can anybody list a few of the “members in influential positions?”

(Note: I’m not disputing this as being factual; but as someone who isn’t familiar with the full list of the FBFI membership, I’m just wondering who such members are.)

I notice that TOvermiller of SI is a contributor. I always find him thoughtful and engaging. Although I don’t really see myself in the FBFI orbit, I will order the issue and read it. I’m interested in seeing what they have to say.

What I meant was, a few posters on SI have insisted that the FBFI acted wrongly, and asked for FBFI to “name names.” The FBFI has so far refused to do that.

That sounds a lot like Spurgeon in the Down Grade Controversy.

Kapiche?

Please define “influential position.”

If BJU and Maranatha graduates who become pastors are not joining the FBFI, what organization are they joining?

[Mark_Smith]

Please define “influential position.”

Since I’m unsure of/don’t know who such members in question are, I was leaving the answer up to any respondents’ interpretation.

Are we talking about seminary professors? Certain pastors? Leaders of parachurch organizations? Others? I don’t know; therefore I asked the question.

[Mark_Smith]

If BJU and Maranatha graduates who become pastors are not joining the FBFI, what organization are they joining?

There’s really no need to join any organization:

  • The FBFI is essentially a magazine subscription. One can probably read it without buying it
  • There are dozens (hundreds) of events a pastor may attend without joining anything

Mark: I think the place I’d define the difference between what Spurgeon did with downgrade and the FBFI’s position on convergence is that Spurgeon’s terms were quite well understood—as a general warning, it would suffice as a way of describing who the theological liberals were. You could spot it from old earth geology and Darwinism and the like—it was theologically very specific.

I don’t see that kind of specificity in the FBFI articles, though like you I would have a hunch it has a lot to do with social issues and the like. And that’s a shame, because they just might have a point.

I also don’t believe that naming names serves much purpose in either situation, as what is at stake here is not personalities, but rather theological and social positions—if indeed, for example, beverage alcohol or rock music is a Gospel issue, I don’t need to simply be pointed at Stryper or Doug Wilson with a well-intentioned “sic ‘em”, but rather I need to know why all people advocating such are mistaken or even in grievous sin.

And since I was the first guy to mention “influential position”, I think I ought to be on the hook to define it. Now without totally trying to expose all 444 members, what I’m getting at here is that you’re going to find a certain subset of members who are seminary professors, pastors of large churches, and the like. In a nutshell, people who influence pastors by their example. If you look at their site and poke around a bit, you’ll see these.

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[Jim]

There’s really no need to join any organization:

  • The FBFI is essentially a magazine subscription. One can probably read it without buying it
  • There are dozens (hundreds) of events a pastor may attend without joining anything

By way of reminder, the FBFI is an important fundamental chaplaincy endorser. More on that here.

Thomas Overmiller
Pastor | StudyGodsWord.com
Blog | ShepherdThoughts.com

You are correct about Chaplaincy. I know the FBFI, GARBC and ACCC are chaplain endorsers. I’m sure there are more, but I’m not aware of them. They are important outlets for Baptist fundamentalists who want to serve in chaplain ministries. Where else would they go?

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.

How many military chaplains have been endorsed by the FBFI?

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan