Showdown looms over SBC and Calvinism

I brought my comment back to the SBC. :) And those of us in the SBC aren’t fundamentalists, right? I mean, my neighbors (all of them) think I’m a fundamentalist, but what do they know?

And the pastor is the individual, then doesn’t the FBFI really have a grip (however loosely) on the church itself?

I understand the FBFI’s reticence to be an association of churches, but it is largely an association of church leaders and therefore churches.

As to the fear factor - I will also vouch for a real ‘fear factor’ of people who want or need to stay on the FBFI’s good side. That is part of why I say the things I can here about it… I can say things that people will never say but absolutely would if they didn’t see the proverbial sword of disfellowship overhead.

Really, if any organization has no message discipline, you’ve got to question whether that organization has any reason to exist. And as John notes, you’ve got formal and informal methods of message discipline—as the Amish will tell you, shunning and shaming can be powerful incentives. Just like expulsion, just like formal sanctions, and the like.

I’ve heard under 500 members (Mike can confirm)

That’s 500 people would paid for a magazine subscription

The demographics are heavily swayed towards the older set

Not even changing the name to “Foundations … [whatever]…” will help

The FBFI is to fundamentalism what Sears is to retail

Don or Mike … please disabuse me of my “500” number

–––

Why its future is dim:

• Trend today is against centralism
• Trend is against heavy-handed autocracy (think the FBFI closed, club like board and persistent presidency (about to change with Vaughn stepping down)
• The FBFI panders to the fringe issues (music, music music) AND
• It’s silly attacks on noted men like MacArthur come across as lame.

This thread proves that any topic can be brought back to Baptist fundamentalism in a very short period of time …

This thread has the ingredients to be epic! Fundamentalism, the SBC, Calvinism, and even music were all mentioned on one page.

Thanks to your comment, I’m now tempted to introduce a*****l into the discussion. But I won’t.

[josh p]

This thread has the ingredients to be epic! Fundamentalism, the SBC, Calvinism, and even music were all mentioned on one page.

We call this thread B.I.N.G.O.

Per Bert’s comment (and Jim’s original comment), we (my reformed SBC church) ignore the request from the SBC every year for our conversion and baptism numbers. I haven’t asked around, but I would imagine that most of the SBC churches associated with either IX Marks or Founders (or both) do not submit their numbers either.

Good for you guys!

Jim and Jay, I don’t know the membership numbers.The last time I hosted the annual meeting at our church I had about 400 outside registrants for the three-day conference. Our theme was “The Supremacy of God”. The conference was one of the most successful annual meetings the FBFI has had in attendance, interest, and substance. This year we are hosting the annual conference with the theme, “The Generation To Come.” I am anticipating about 300 to 350 registrants plus many unregistered visitors in the evening services. I am not throwing grenades at anyone when I state the fact that the FBFI has always been a fellowship of individuals and not churches. In that regard its a loose-knit Christian fellowship that is bound together by its doctrinal statement and mission statement. The FBFI has never pressured me personally. For three decades I have used the NASB as my official church translation, taken a Calvinistic position (4 pt) on soteriology (I am a dispensationalist), have been unashamedly pro-Lordship on the gospel, sung songs from a variety of authors who have produced beautiful melodies and strong theological lyrics. Simply because a song was originally performed in a style that I am very uncomfortable with does not necessarily mean that the song and its lyrics are unacceptable when arranged and presented in a conservative fashion. Many men (certainly not all) in the FBFI would agree with me on that, I believe. Best to evaluate each song on its individual merits aesthetically and theologically and then present it as a musical offering to God in a manner that fully glorifies God. Dr. Minnick has publicly addressed the Conservative Evangelical leaders at FBFI meetings in the most discerning and gracious terms—very fair-minded and balanced presentations. I have been personally present in those meetings to hear these lectures. If you visit our church website and click on the link for the conference (fbctroy.org), you will see that our speakers represent some of the best and brightest men in our circles. The “schedule” gives all the speakers and all their topics. Still working on getting all the pictures of the speakers. Kevin Schaal, our new president, will do an excellent job leading this fellowship. He is well-spoken and highly respected. He is also one of the most successful church-planters in Arizona and has a wonderful church and Christian school. The FBFI is far from perfect (partly because I’m in it), but I believe the fellowship has improved over the years. Some of your criticism is valid and by God’s grace we will learn from that criticism. That’s my heart on the matter.

can be deceiving. Many of its supporters only subscribe to Frontline but are not members.

I thought this was a thread about the SBC? but John E. wants to troll about the FBFI, so throws out a little line to sidetrack the discussion. Nice.

As for the SBC, as I understand it, the president has authority to appoint board members of many SBC institutions, especially the seminaries. That is how they accomplished the “Conservative resurgence” and recovered the seminaries from the Liberals. I don’t know either of the men nominated for president this time, but suspect they both intend to continue the conservative approach of the last few years (decades?).

Please note, I hope my statements above are accurate, but regardless, the SBC president does have some real clout, not over local churches, but over SBC institutions.

Call me naive and uninformed if you want. But, troll?

My insertion of the FBFI was much, much less about the FBFI and much, much more about the SBC. Responding to Tyler’s comment, It was a contrast with the intended purpose of making the point that the president of the SBC will make almost no difference (if any) to the daily operations of SBC churches (for the record, there is technically no such thing as an SBC church; there are churches who contribute money to varying degrees or other and who send “messengers” to the Convention).

If I am a troll that loves using the FBFI to sidetrack conversations, then it should be easy to find my many, many comments on the many, many threads about the FBFI or threads sidetracked by FBFI discussions. The years I’ve been a member of SI have provided me ample opportunity to grind my FBFI ax. Except, I haven’t. You won’t find those many, many anti-FBFI comments because I ain’t made ‘em.

My response to Mike Harding is one of the very few (if any) publicly negative comments I’ve made about the FBFI.

In fact, if you were to scour through my online writings beyond just SI, you’ll find that I am usually defending FBFI style fundamentalism. Much to the consternation of old friends and acquaintances who have actively lobbied me in the past to join the anti-fundamentalism online crowd.

I am thankful for fundamentalism. I am thankful for my strict, fundamentalist parents, including my dad who recently retired from the FBFI. I have spilled much ink saying so, and I’ve received quite a bit of blow back and lost friends for doing so.

First, I am using it in the internet sense of one who throws a comment into the mix to start a fuss and then sit back and watch. You aren’t exactly doing that.

However, please do note that the comment in this thread was gratuitous, had nothing to do with the topic, and given our history here, lends itself to a feeding frenzy about the FBFI. Am I not correct?

So be more careful. As I pointed out in my comment above, the SBC is a denomination, its positions are positions of real power and influence, limited though they may be. The FBFI is an entirely different kind of organization. Yes, we do make our positions known, but we have no power (nor do we want any) to enforce our views on churches. We want to influence and persuade, not control.