FBFI and the KJV

Don is right - there are a LOT of good men on the Board. But it seems like the Board as a whole is increasingly unable (or unwilling?) to do anything without splitting themselves in half. They’re doubleminded - either they want to stick to the way things were and should be to retain their members or see the need for change but are powerless to effect it because they lack the votes necessary.

Like I said, it is really, really sad. And, honestly, this is exactly. what I. said. happened. to Northland. We’ll see if the FBFI can avoid that fate. I’m not going to hold my breath.

Here is a video with some great insight into this impasse.

Additional questions for FBFI guys:

• Can self-identifying KJVO men join the FBFI?
• Is there an effort to identify KJVO members? And remove them?

Something to think about:

• If you wish to grow the FBFI (and I presume you do) …
• Surely you understand that there are solid men who do not wish to be in fellowship with KJVOnly men (I don’t - I regard it as heresy!)!
• So perhaps it’s a time to “Dare to be a Daniel” and take some action! Esther: “if i perish I perish!”

[Jay]

I think this is why Don won’t entertain discussion about the FBFI here. He’s only accountable to the other Board members of the FBFI, not to hoi polloi like us or even the shrinking FBFI membership.

Jay, I am not interested in distracting from the subject of this thread. As usual, those who hate the FBFI and what we stand for want to veer away from the topic at hand to slander us. I’m not interested in participating in that discussion here.

[Jay]

I think this is why Don won’t entertain discussion about the FBFI here. He’s only accountable to the other Board members of the FBFI, not to hoi polloi like us or even the shrinking FBFI membership. The members are expected to simply pay dues and show up…except that now a lot of people aren’t bothering to do either, and the organization is hurting for money and involvement. I’d also bet that a lot of the current members that are still there are wondering why it’s so hard to get a hearing on anything or to make any decisions. It’s all because the Board isn’t worried about what the members are. They’re worried about what the other Board members are worried about - the “incipient Convergent threat” or whatever else the issue of the moment is. Anything outside of their cloistered walls is either irrelevant, overblown, or unimportant. This also explains why Don keeps reiterating the point that many people would be hurt - many people that he or other Board members are close to or pastoring would be hurt. Anyone else is…. on their own, if they’re even interested in the FBFI.

Jay, I’m sure you realize that what you wrote here is complete speculation, but it’s also more than a little uncharitable.

I don’t know if I completely understand Don’s position on this, but it looks to me like the FBFI has made its position on KJV-only quite clear. Now it’s my turn to speculate. I would guess that while the position of the FBFI itself is not KJV-only, they have to be careful because the churches of some of the members ARE KJV-only, of one stripe or another, and need to be led away from it carefully, as many of the members of those churches have believed that position a long time, maybe for their whole lives. That’s just a guess, but I think it’s reasonable, especially given what Don has written. (I guess some of the FBFI members themselves could be KJVO, but certainly not because the organization has been less-than-clear about their position.)

It would be pretty easy to Monday-morning quarterback, and just think all FBFI pastors should tell their churches what the new position is, and let the chips fall where they may, but from where I sit, that would not be leading a church in love. I agree that this belief should not be coddled, and the men that lead those churches should carefully work to get their people away from that belief, rather than staying where they are because it’s easy. Maybe some are doing that. But this problem isn’t as simple as it looks.

For a number of years, I was in a church that started out NOT being KJV-only, but changed over time, with the pastor eventually becoming a part of the Brandenburg orbit, essentially TR-only, which in practical terms meant KJV-only, even if not “english-only.” It took a few years of coming to understand where the change was leading for me to come out of that, partly because I’m not the type of person to just “get offended” and leave, and because I also wanted to be able to personally read and study enough to know for myself which way I came down, rather than just accepting or rejecting what was being preached. I now have, for a layman anyway, a pretty good handle on the issues involved, but even though I am educated (degrees in mathematics and computer science), I was definitely NOT an expert on the translation/textual Bible issue. I’m sure many in churches have not taken the time I have to read and study this issue. As Don said, because the problem was allowed to fester for the last 30 years, it’s probably going to take a long time to root out, and similar to the parable of the tares, it’s not going to be easy to just quickly rip this out, without also harming much of the wheat.

So in summary, while I agree that this issue should not just be left there, I believe it’s unrealistic to just demand that all self-respecting, Bible-believing, pastored-by-FBFI-member churches should start preaching from something other than the KJV this Sunday, and just telling their members to like it or lump it.

Bro. Barnhart wrote:

So in summary, while I agree that this issue should not just be left there, I believe it’s unrealistic to just demand that all self-respecting, Bible-believing, pastored-by-FBFI-member churches should start preaching from something other than the KJV this Sunday, and just telling their members to like it or lump it.

That’s good advice. This is why I’ve directed folks a few times to see the approach Bro. Overmiller took. There are many resources available to help pastors think about this. Bro. Ward’s book, James White’s book, the edited books God’s Word in Our Hands and From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man, and Carson’s old book, and One Bible Only? are all out there. So are Combs’ DBTS articles. They’ve been out there for a very long time.

I don’t believe there’s anything “new” to discuss about this issue. It’s a bad position. It’s always been bad. The resources have been available to combat it for a long time! For decades!

• A pastor ought to not take a KJVO or preferred church
• A pastor should be very honest with where he’s coming from during the candidating process
• Christians should leave KJVO churches and find a place with an orthodox position on bible translations and preservation

People can hem and haw about “patience” and other noble goals, but how many men are making a start of it? I rather suspect far too many are keeping their heads down and not touching it with a 100 foot pole. Be bold, like Bro. Overmiller. Start the conversation. Stick a toe in the water and make a start of it. All of these resources are good. They’re really helpful. They’ll help you. They’ll help you help your people. The FBFI should highlight them if they want to help pastors help their people; they could form a bibliography of sorts. I hope they do, and I look forward to the article that’s coming!

[Jim]

Don Johnson wrote:

those who hate the FBFI and what we stand for

Seriously Don, who on this thread “hate[s] the FBFI and what [you] stand for”?

Is it I? Perhaps you guys don’t want to answer the simple questions posed!

I’ll leave that for you to figure out, but let me try again on what we are talking about.

In this thread, I am happy to point people to the long standing position of the FBFI on the versions. You don’t have to agree, but our position is well known and of long standing. That is what this thread is discussing.

The structure of the FBFI is irrelevant to this discussion. It seems rather desperate (not to mention simply making cheap shots) to try to stir the pot with that. It is a propaganda technique, and you ought to know better.

I am also somewhat dismayed at the cavalier attitude you and many others display to those folks who are KJO by default, belonging to churches where it is taught, but not clearly understanding the issues. There ought to be some care for them. Perhaps you need to rethink what a pastoral spirit ought to be.

Jay, I’m sure you realize that what you wrote here is complete speculation, but it’s also more than a little uncharitable.

I don’t mean to be uncharitable, but I do need to say what I see is going on at least from the outside. I’m not a member, and frankly have no idea why I keep wasting my time trying to encourage the FBFI to change or at least look at this differently. Maybe I expect too much from the institutions that trained me.

I don’t know if I completely understand Don’s position on this, but it looks to me like the FBFI has made its position on KJV-only quite clear.

I agree with this. So why, then, is it so hard to deal for them to with this issue? I’ve already said that it appears to be because the leadership is far more concerned about their friends than they are the truth. Jim and others have asked similar questions, and Don’s response is that the ‘enemies of fundamentalism’ are on the warpath.

Well, if making peace with KJVOnlyism makes me an enemy of [organized] fundamentalism, I’m OK with that.

Now it’s my turn to speculate. I would guess that while the position of the FBFI itself is not KJV-only, they have to be careful because the churches of some of the membefrs ARE KJV-only, of one stripe or another, and need to be led away from it carefully, as many of the members of those churches have believed that position a long time, maybe for their whole lives. That’s just a guess, but I think it’s reasonable, especially given what Don has written.

It is reasonable, and by no means do I think that someone should just go into a pulpit, proclaim that we are now teaching from The Living Bible (to pick one at random), and ‘like it or lump it’ or however you put it. I think the foolishness of that type of teaching speaks for itself and does not need to be commented on.

But I am completely exhausted with this…excuse…that the FBFI leadership has to be careful and slow moving. They’ve been making official statements on this topic since 1979, although the first explicit resolution decrying KJVOnlyism was from 1995 (23 years ago). Don himself has said that he preaches and teaches from the NASB. I believe it is Don that continues to insist that the FBFI isn’t an association of churches, but individuals. They have the right to expel any member at any time, as per their bylaws:

d. Discipline and Dismissal of Members: Members who persist in sin after the scriptural procedures found in Matthew 18:11-22 have been exercised by their local churches, or who by their persistent resistance to attempts to contact them make reconciliation impossible, or who are known to be out of fellowship with the Statement of Faith and purposes of the Fellowship, and will not alter their direction, shall be excluded by a majority action of the Board of Directors.

So they can’t have it both ways. Either the FBFI is comprised of individual members, and the Board should be expelling members that are KJVO, or they are an association of pastors that are responsible for entire churches and they have been ignoring their duty to protect the flock from gross heresy. I don’t know, and to be honest, I’m really glad that I’m not a part of this mess. We have way too many issues in my local assembly to tolerate this level of foolishness.

This is not a fundamentalism worth saving. Fundamentalism will continue on without NIU, BJU, SharperIron, the FBFI, or whatever other organizations are out there. It lives in the hearts of people who 1. believe and obey sound doctrine and 2. defend it. Furthermore, TylerR’s advice to Kevin Schaal from May is spot on and well worth re-reading. If the FBFI won’t deal with incipient heresy in its’ ranks, then I won’t deal with the FBFI. I have to regard the FBFI itself as corrupt and in need of purifying from a doctrinal point of view. That ties my hands.

Jim, I would leave Don alone. If he wants to identify me (or you) as an enemy of whatever sort of fundamentalism this is, then my response is “whatevs”. It doesn’t bother me at all.

Most guys I know who come from the KJVO orbit know the truth about the translation issue, but are afraid to break ranks because they’re afraid of men. The networks among KJVO IFB churches and bible colleges are very strong, and this reinforces the reluctance to break on this issue.

What would be nice is if the forthcoming article from FBFI is entitled: “KJVOism is wrong! What’re you going to do about it?”

Postscript: What’s funny is the person who disliked this comment … Whoever you are, I laugh at you!

Jay,

I’m not a member of the FBFI either, so I have no dog in the fight as to whether they should continue to exist or not. I also don’t think you are being uncharitable to pastors who are trying to be wishy-washy on KJVO. They definitely need to pick a side and fight for it, though they always need to watch for the sheep under their care.

I do think, though, that since neither you nor I are members of FBFI, that if you don’t know what’s going on inside their organization, it’s always better to assume the best, rather than the worst. I certainly know and respect several men who are members, so I’m inclined to think they are doing what they can to move people away from the KJVO heresy. Maybe they *should* draw a line in the sand inside FBFI, but since their organization already has made its position clear, any members who are still KJVO are certainly in an organization that doesn’t agree with them. Should the FBFI make an effort to find and root them out? Maybe, but that’s for them to say. It certainly can’t hurt them on this issue to have had Mark Ward speak.

As others here, including (I think) you, have said is their experience, FBFI doesn’t affect my church or my family, and I don’t support them with money, so while I want any organization that claims to follow the scriptures to stay true to God’s word, what the FBFI does or does not do affects me no more than say, the orbit of WCBC, which is also not part of my life in any way.

Consider this statement:

“I’m not vegan myself, but I always adhere to a vegan diet. I personally don’t believe there’s anything wrong with eating meat, eggs, or dairy, but I never do. I’m having a potluck next week, and you’re welcome to attend. If you do, you must bring only vegan items though. I won’t permit any non-vegan items in my home.”

Despite such a person’s claims to the contrary, I’d stake a claim that the person IS vegan. He may not be in principle, but he certainly is in practice.

Next, consider this statement:

“I’m not KJVO, but I only use the KJV. I personally don’t believe there’s anything wrong with using other versions, but I never do. I’d like to invite you to preach in our church, but if you do, you must preach from only the KJV. No other versions are permitted in our pulpit.”

Despite such a person’s claims to the contrary, I’d stake a claim that the person IS KJVO. He may not be in principle, but he certainly is in practice.