FBFI "Why we are still here"

That’s a good looking group of men. My son is in the Navy and good chaplains are hard to find.

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

Yeup, there’s no secret handshake. Over the years, I’ve observed the FBF nationally to be more or less a magazine subscription. Locally, the NorCal FBF has been a mailing list for the various fellowship meetings (annual and others) and until recently it published a directory (“membership” not required). In fact, I’ve subscribed to Frontline for years and have never been a “member”of the FBFI.

[Jim]

Mark_Smith wrote:

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

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

[Mark_Smith]

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

As a millennial grad of Maranatha, I have never considered joining the FBFI. As pastor’s fellowships go, it might be top notch, but I can’t really say. My church is a member of the Wisconsin Fellowship of Baptist Churches, and so I have chosen to become personally involved with that statewide ministry. In addition I enjoy a monthly prayer fellowship with other like-minded pastors in my region of the state and a quarterly book study with still another group of men. There seem to be plenty of opportunities to share with other fundamental Baptist pastors without joining the FBFI.

[TylerR]

I suspect I understand what the FBFI means when it refers to “convergents,” now. Our church had a combined Good Friday service with several other like-minded churches. It was hosted at one particular church. The Pastor from the hosting church is younger, and has an MDiv from a fundamentalist institution. Here is what I witnessed:

There was no preaching. Did you catch that. NO PREACHING.
There was only singing - and it was all CCM, and it was shallow. It sounded like low-rent pop from the lesser radio stations with a Jesus gloss.
There was the Lord’s Supper. There was no attempt whatsoever, even subtly, to “fence” the table. The service assumed everybody was a Christian.
There was no Gospel proclamation. Did you get that? NO GOSPEL. The closest the Pastor came was when he announced this at the end of the service: “Thanks for coming out tonight. Listen, if you want to know more about Jesus, and you’re searching, talk me, talk to somebody! If someone has a suit on, they probably have it all put together. Ok, let’s head over for some dessert!”

This wasn’t a service. It was blasphemy. My Pastor was not happy. My children were not happy. I was not happy. This was pathetic. It was a disgrace. This church advertised the Good Friday service in the community. I am certain a few unbelievers were present. What a wasted opportunity. What blasphemy. Yet, this church labels itself as a “fundamental Baptist church” on its website. From what I saw on Friday evening:

They’re not fundamentalists
They’re not Baptists
I hope they’re Christian - I really have no reason to expect they are. I didn’t hear the Gospel.

We held a joint Good Friday service with an E-Free church. We agreed we couldn’t and wouldn’t do communion together because of the E-Free’s open view on baptism. I even let the EFree pastor preach (it was held at our church). He preached the gospel. He preached well to his congregation and to mine. I’ve added below our order of service. I still consider myself a Baptist Separatist.

Good Friday Service

First Baptist Church

Rose City Evangelical Free Church

Pastor Christopher Watson

Pastor Ralph Erickson

Welcome

Prayer

Call to Worship: Philippians 2:5-8

Hymn – 160 – There Is a Fountain Filled with Blood

Old Testament Reading: Psalm 22

Hymn – Psalm 22B

Special Music: Rose City Church Choir

Hymn – 161 – O Sacred Head, Now Wounded

Hymn – 159 – Alas! and Did My Savior Bleed?

New Testament Reading: John 19:16-30

Hymn: Were You There? (v 1-3)

Sermon: Pastor Ralph Erickson – If You Were There

Hymn – 147 – Hallelujah! What a Savior!

[Bert Perry]

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,

There were at least two major problems/difficulties that Spurgeon faced with the Baptist Union. The first was that he didn’t name names. Because he didn’t, he came across in the minds of many as petty and schismatic. He said there were serious problems and he revealed the nature of those problems, but he didn’t identify anyone in the Baptist Union who as guilty of those things. And he lost his case and was censored.

The other major problem was the refusal of the Baptist Union to agree on and require its members to align to a statement of faith. Leon McBeth in his evaluation the Downgrade Controversy said, “In the late 1880s, Baptists had little inclination and almost no means to hold individual Baptists to any kind of confessional stance. The Baptist Union maintained only minimal doctrinal standards, devised partly to accommodate the General Baptist merger of 1891.” The lack of a creed enabled evangelical drift and, as Spurgeon found out, provided no way to recover from such drift.

Andy, points well taken, but it strikes me that if Spurgeon couldn’t get consensus on the items Jim mentions above, I think the battle was effectively lost before it was joined—that is, the efforts of Spurgeon and other orthodox pastors were, though they probably didn’t know it at the time, more or less a rear guard action against theological liberalism that had migrated across the Channel from the German form critics. The people who were guilty of what Spurgeon alleged knew exactly who they were and indicated this with their vote NOT to have a clearer statement of faith. No?

Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.

[Bert Perry]

Andy, points well taken, but it strikes me that if Spurgeon couldn’t get consensus on the items Jim mentions above, I think the battle was effectively lost before it was joined—that is, the efforts of Spurgeon and other orthodox pastors were, though they probably didn’t know it at the time, more or less a rear guard action against theological liberalism that had migrated across the Channel from the German form critics. The people who were guilty of what Spurgeon alleged knew exactly who they were and indicated this with their vote NOT to have a clearer statement of faith. No?

Correct in that the battle was lost before it began and Spurgeon actually said that was one reason he didn’t name names. However, it was not just the theological liberals who opposed having a clear creed. Part of it was the idea that some Baptists have regarding autonomy. Should an association force Baptist churches to embrace an “extra-biblical” creed — why isn’t the Bible good enough? Well, it turns out if you want to protect an organization form theological liberalism, you are going to need a creed and you’re going to need to enforce it.

I am more than willing to be corrected but I always understood the downgrade to be a battle with apostasy while I don’t think that anyone would call convergents apostate although they be be treated that way by some.

I remember when having an MA (Mark and Avoid) was an essential part of being a militant fundamentalist. Naming names was actively practiced. (Billy Graham, Jack Van Impe, Bill Gaither, Jerry Falwell, John MacArthur, etc.) Only recently have I observed a refusal to identify “compromisers” like the convergents, the one exception being Northland in its final days. The danger of this is that it makes “us” suspicious of those who are not “us” and can drive us deeper into our Village.

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

To me, the entire issue with “convergents” is about 2 things. First, if you want to loosen your music standards from traditional worship, and you start from the BJU/Maranatha/etc position, you will start singing Getty and Sovereign Grace songs. Maybe you will stop there. Maybe not.

Second, the bigger and more important issue, at least to me, is Calvinism. If you see yourself as a Calvinist, then you will read and listen to MacArthur/Piper/Dever. Next thing you know you are at their conferences. You read the TGC blog every day. Pretty soon, you are into Presbyterian writings sans infant baptism.

Maybe you can throw in a third- alcohol. But, no one I have talked to personally have made that an issue. Several have with Calvinism and music.

Those two things are what “convergents” are about. At least to me. But keep in mind, while I am an FBFI member, I am a weirdo. I never went to any fundamentalist school, and never have been to anything other than a regional FBFI meeting.

Your link to Mike Riley does not work.

[Mark_Smith]

Your link to Mike Riley does not work.

http://sharperiron.org/article/young-fundamentalist-fundamentalism

Several quotes:

the institutions that still proudly wear the label fundamentalist are increasingly dominated by those who are (or tolerate those who are) the most rabid anti-Calvinists, and by those who uphold (or tolerate those who uphold) disastrous heresies on the text of Scripture.

Given the changing complexion of institutional fundamentalism, I suspect there is decreasing tolerance for an outspoken Calvinist—even one no more outspoken than the semi-Pelagians who receive choruses of amens. Is there a place in fundamentalism for one who happily acknowledges that he has profited from the ministries of brothers not of our tribe, commends their resources, and applauds them in their battles for the evangel (even as he sees no good reason to join their battles)? Is it possible to be a fundamentalist in good standing while also standing opposed to overtly pragmatic, manipulative methods of ministry?

I’m saddened about my fundamentalism. I love the house, but hate what’s being done to the place.

[Mark_Smith]

To me, the entire issue with “convergents” is about 2 things. First, if you want to loosen your music standards from traditional worship, and you start from the BJU/Maranatha/etc position, you will start singing Getty and Sovereign Grace songs. Maybe you will stop there. Maybe not.

Take out your church’s hymnal sometime and look at the dates of composition on a handful of the pietistic, revival songs. Most of those songs were considered a “loosening” of the traditional worship standards long before the Gettys. In many cases deservedly so, might I add.