Report from FBFI meeting
The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International
While its dispensationalism is a bit fuzzy, the FBFI is definitely anti-Reformed. A question was raised at this year’s meeting as to what sort of Reformed theology the group opposed. One speaker answered that the group had room for three- or four-point Calvinists, but not for five-pointers or for people who placed regeneration prior to faith in the ordo salutis. No one contradicted this speaker’s dictum—at least not publicly.
- 37 views
Meeting only ten minutes from Bob Jones University, the FBFI was near the heart of its strength. During the evening sessions on Wednesday the auditorium was packed—area churches cancelled their midweek services in support of the event. During the day, however, when only the FBFI members were in attendance, the number was more like a couple of hundred. Of these, fewer than a dozen appeared to be under forty years of age.
If this year’s meeting is any indication, the FBFI is dwindling. In one way, that is not surprising. The younger pastors have been trained to value preaching that directly reflects the text of Scripture. They also tend to lean toward some version of Calvinism. By featuring pulpit allegories and by attacking mainstream Calvinists, the FBFI is more likely to drive young leaders toward conservative evangelicalism than it is to attract them to its own valuable positions. It would do well to cease featuring non-expositional treatments of the Word of God, and it would do well to adopt a more welcoming stance toward mainstream Calvinist fundamentalists.
One speaker answered that the group had room for three- or four-point Calvinists, but not for five-pointers or for people who placed regeneration prior to faith in the ordo salutis.
They apparently don’t have room for at least one board member.
I was at the meeting and don’t recall hearing a response like that. If there was, it certainly wasn’t stated exactly the way Kevin has portrayed it. Or else my memory is failing. I will check on it though.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
The description of the FBF’s history is an honest one. Their claim to have existed within the NBC in the 20’s always intrigued me. Their expulsion from the NBC and split from the CBA is more realistic. If they were indeed in the NBC in the 20’s, why did they take 20 years to come out and be separate?
BTW< when Bell was president, didn’t they allow Ian Paisley to speak at their meetings?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
the claim is a valid one. They have the organizational history to prove it. It’s also the reason the GARBC didn’t cotton to the FBF from 50s through 70s.
[Ron Bean]The description of the FBF’s history is an honest one. Their claim to have existed within the NBC in the 20’s always intrigued me. Their expulsion from the NBC and split from the CBA is more realistic. If they were indeed in the NBC in the 20’s, why did they take 20 years to come out and be separate?
BTW< when Bell was president, didn’t they allow Ian Paisley to speak at their meetings?
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Jim]I am a 43-year old former member of the FBFI, and Dr. Bauder is exactly right about a big part of the reason for my departure. While I still self-identify as an historic fundamentalist, it seems that over time fundamentalists, and particularly the FBFI, have slowly been narrowing their doctrinal identity pushing away groups of people with whom they formerly found common fellowship.Meeting only ten minutes from Bob Jones University, the FBFI was near the heart of its strength. During the evening sessions on Wednesday the auditorium was packed—area churches cancelled their midweek services in support of the event. During the day, however, when only the FBFI members were in attendance, the number was more like a couple of hundred. Of these, fewer than a dozen appeared to be under forty years of age.
If this year’s meeting is any indication, the FBFI is dwindling. In one way, that is not surprising. The younger pastors have been trained to value preaching that directly reflects the text of Scripture. They also tend to lean toward some version of Calvinism. By featuring pulpit allegories and by attacking mainstream Calvinists, the FBFI is more likely to drive young leaders toward conservative evangelicalism than it is to attract them to its own valuable positions. It would do well to cease featuring non-expositional treatments of the Word of God, and it would do well to adopt a more welcoming stance toward mainstream Calvinist fundamentalists.
Why is it that my voice always seems to be loudest when I am saying the dumbest things?
Cross-posted here: http://religiousaffections.org/articles/in-the-nick-of-time/the-fundame…
“The younger pastors have been trained to value preaching that directly reflects the text of Scripture. They also tend to lean toward some version of Calvinism. By featuring pulpit allegories and by attacking mainstream Calvinists, the FBFI is more likely to drive young leaders toward conservative evangelicalism than it is to attract them to its own valuable positions. It would do well to cease featuring non-expositional treatments of the Word of God, and it would do well to adopt a more welcoming stance toward mainstream Calvinist fundamentalists.”
What (Bauder) say is true, but I think there is more to it than that, as well. While there may have been historical reasons that made sense for a self-perpetuating board, the fact is that now, the only way to have any influence in the FBFI is to do something that merits the attention of a board member who generally would share your views. While it might be a bit too disparaging to call it a “good old boys club,” the reality is that if the majority of the board has particular leanings on certain issues, they will be less likely to populate the board with those who have dramatically different emphases than theirs. While anyone has the opportunity be a member provided they agree to the statement and pay their dues, that membership is essentially a subscription to the magazine and a listing in the directory. No official cooperation, nothing (apart from arguably the magazine) is accomplished that could not be by a larger church with the resources to put on a pastors conference. If you were a member and wanted to see more of an expositional emphasis than there has been, there is no mechanism available to you other than voicing your concern to a board member. You don’t approve the program or speakers, nor do you elect the people who do so. It isn’t necessary to be an FBF member to come to their meetings… when I was in Maine, I think there were two of us in the state, but plenty more were invited and came to the regional meeting. You get some potential cross-pollination between graduates of different institutions (as a Faith grad, I made some connections when I pastored in Maine that were probably helped by being an FBF member), but in a way, the internet has made that less valuable than it once was.
Associations have their warts and flaws, but they also present opportunities for joint ventures such as cooperative church planting, camp ministries, educational institutions… while giving churches and pastors a sense that involvement and investment can bring with it a measure of influence. There is a reason to get together, to work through and alongside people with whom you don’t agree with on everything, because together you are able to do what you could not as well on your own. In a setting like the FBFI, if you hold an unpopular position, it can be much easier to conclude that there are better ways to spend your time and resources, because why would the board, long established with their own positions, listen to you?
This is also, I suspect, a reason some are drawn to conservative evangelicalism, and specifically the SBC. While there are conservative positions to be championed, there are also tangible things to be gained if battles are won (conservative control of seminaries and colleges equaling teaching opportunities for those with conservative leanings, cooperative program advantages for missionaries…). Influence is accessible if you are willing to work. The breadth of the SBC allows for manifold differing voices, but conservative voices definitely have a place at the table.
The FBFI has articulated general doctrinal positions I can (and for the most part, could still) support. At the same time, when I ultimately allowed my membership to expire, it wasn’t because of any particular dissatisfaction or disgust. Rather, I didn’t see what unique benefit I derived from belonging to it, nor what benefit I provided the organization and others by belonging to it. The same kinds of missionaries called me before, during, and after I was a member. I was able to go to the meetings (and find about about them online).I had no chance to get on any board, but I’m not sure I would have while I was a member, and what would it have accomplished if I had been selected?
If the FBFI wants a future, they need to make a clear and compelling case for membership- things that one gains that one would not have otherwise, causes that would not be aided, service opportunities that one could not seize… They also need to consider the downsides to their current self-perpetuating board structure. What made sense historically may end up relegating them to history. That might not mean dispensing with the structure entirely, but Baptist congregationalism should not be so entirely foreign to a Baptist organization like the FBF that members have no official voice whatsoever.
Take it FWIW.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Well said Greg! I agree with your analysis which was much more tactful than any I could write. Before I left I wrote to the board at least twice and expressed many of the thoughts that Greg mentioned. When I received no response, I drew the logical conclusion.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
I have no ax to grind with the FBFI. I’m a young Pastor who is Calvinistic. Preaching through the Gospel of John for the past eight months hasn’t done anything but strengthen that. I look at fundamentalism from the context of the fundementalist-modernist controversy, not from the 1950’s neo-evangelical point of view. Speaking for myself, I see absolutely nothing I need or want from the FBFI. I don’t hate them. I’m just not sure what they exist for or what they do. Why should I join them? What’s the point?
- To hear about how John MacArthur is a good guy, but still a neo-evangelical? No thanks.
- To see Sexton invited to preach? I’ll pass.
- To get Frontline? The magazine looks quite good, but that’s not a good enough reason.
What about the mission statement? Here it is:
FBFI’s mission is to provide a rallying point for Fundamental Baptists seeking personal revival and the opportunity to work with committed Bible-believers in glorifying God through the uncompromising fulfillment of the Great Commission.
What, exactly, does that mean? From their website, it looks like that means they have regional and national fellowships. Either I’m missing something, or their PR is bad.
What about their vision?
FBFI’s Vision is to perpetuate the heritage of Baptist Fundamentalism complete, intact, pure, and undiluted to
succeeding generations of fundamentalists.
Lovely. Let’s do it. How does the FBFI contribute to that? I’m not sure. Apparently the website isn’t either.
Let me repeat, I don’t hate the FBFI. I’ve been looking into them off and on for the past few years, and I just have no idea (1) what in the world they specifically do or (2) why I ought to join them in doing whatever it is they do. All the website seems to want to actually communicate is that the FBFI endorses chaplains. I got that loud and clear. It’s too bad I can’t understand what the entire organization actually does.
That’s the perspective of a young Pastor who’s looking for a group to latch onto. I also don’t think I’m alone. I’m more impressed with the GARBC, frankly. That’s the direction I’m drifting out here in central Illinois …
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
Are the sermons from their latest meeting available for listening? Their web site seems to never change and has no links to other information. I think Tyler asks some good questions. I’ve heard similar ones asked and seen the questioners considered critics.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
The more active website is called Proclaim and Defend. It has the audio from the meetings plus articles and blogs that people write. For example, the recent Don Johnson blog here at SI on what to do if your church leaves you is from Proclaim and Defend:
One of the lead articles from Proclaim & Defend is entitled, “New Evangelicalism and the New Calvinism: The Same Disaster.” Bauder’s remarks about the FBFI being anti-Calvinistic seem to be borne out by the very title of the piece. To make matters worse, the author went on to lament that “New Calvinists” are also “new evangelicals,” and spent most of his time critiquing Tim Keller. He did nothing to actually prove that a Calvinist soteriology will produce a “new evangelical,” but there it is.
The very fact that the FBFI is even talking about “new evangelicals” seems quaint and old-fashioned. New Evangelicals are the fundamentalists in what passes for evangelicalism these days. Tremper Longman III, a “conservative” OT scholar, has gone on record doubting the historicity of Adam! Norm Geisler and the folks at Master’s Seminary are being labeled fundamentalists for actually believing in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Homosexual activism is on the rise. What does the FBFI publish? Proclaim & Defend’s latest articles are about (1) “new calvinism” and (2) music. These issues should be discussed, but this kind of thing is all I ever hear from the FBFI - it’s like a broken record.
Is there no positive fundamentalist message from this body? All I see is an organization playing perpetual defense. By contrast, I spoke to a GARBC guy this past week, and he told me about a new church plant they’re getting off the ground about 40 miles away from me.
Regarding what they offer potential members, this is from the Proclaim & Defend site:
In pursuing its mission, the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International has many opportunities for your edification and fellowship. Here is how you can participate:
Join the FBFI
Get FrontLine magazine
Support our Chaplains (or become a chaplain)
Be blessed at one of our Fellowship meetings
That’s it? No thanks. Again, why should I? Can’t I just “be blessed” by listening to the conference audio? Frontline is really excellent, but isn’t the FBFI more than a magazine publisher? I’ll make the trek up to Watertown if the next conference really will be held there, but I’m not impressed. Not that I’m anybody special; I’m not. But again - I don’t think I’m the only younger Pastor who doesn’t see any reason to join the FBFI.
Some of you are members of the FBFI. You may say I’m ignorant and just don’t know the organization. I respond = the fault is yours, because I’m looking to fellowship, and I haven’t found one single reason to have anything to do with the FBFI:
- You say new evangelicalism is bad. Fine - I have McCune’s book already. Along with Pickering (both of them). Along with Moritz.
- You say CCM is bad. Fine, I have Gary Reimer’s book on worship and a whole lot of others. I’m with you.
What else do you say? I hear crickets. I don’t want to hear crickets. I want to hear something more. Where can I find it?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
What would you like a fellowship to provide Tyler?
I think the younger crowd wants active blogs on hot topics like TGC, James White, even John MacArthur, cover. I don’t see the FBFI doing that. From what I can tell most FBFI members think fellowship is a bi-monthly phone call. See how many interact here…none except Don Johnson who is a FBFI board member. I know of several FBFI members who say they peruse SI every now and then, but they never comment. That says something about their age, but it also says something about their worldview. They attended BJU, say, in its heyday. They don’t think about homosexuality and the church, for example, except to make a 2 sentence condemnation of it. No need to from their perspective since it is so obviously wrong. What they do talk about is “holding the line”, like with music, more than discussing current topics.
Good question. I’ll come back tomorrow. Not enough time right now.
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
I’m not Tyler… but a fellowship like the FBFI does provide opportunities for networking. That is good. Some of those benefits are not as crucial as they used to be, though- like being listed in a directory so people can find a church, or missionaries can find people to arrange deputation meetings with. One can easily be found these days on the internet if one wants to.
A fellowship should allow for positions to be articulated. The FBFI does that, but it is only the positions of the board. The membership has no voice or involvement other than the appearance of supporting the actions of the board, or leaving the membership if the concern is great enough.
Beyond that, there are plenty of things that can happen. At local levels, I have been involved in many different kinds of pastor’s fellowships and found great value. The best ones leave me with a sense that what I do and what I contribute matters to the others in the context, even if I’m not the planner or involved in some official capacity. I think that’s one thing that the FBFI doesn’t do as well as it could. I will even acknowledge that they have made an effort- for example, I was asked to contribute an article to Frontline while a member (which I did). But I had also gained a measure of notoriety at that time (I was the Forum Director at SI, which was gaining a full head of steam back then). What does the rural pastor who doesn’t have that same kind of notoriety or interest/possible skill in that kind of writing do to contribute? Would he even get the opportunity if he didn’t seek it out himself? What does he stand to gain or provide to others that he could not if he weren’t a member of the FBFI? What benefit is his membership to the church he serves? What can he do when some positions he holds are opposed or demeaned by the board or its publications?
A Fellowship is more about influence- unlike an Association, which typically includes more cooperative ministry opportunities at the core of its existence. Fellowships offer opportunity for networking, and articulate a collective voice. In the case of the FBFI, as a member, you essentially decide whether or not you are comfortable being identified with the voice of the boards. If not, you don’t join (or you can eventually leave if you’re already in). You can handle things informally (contact a board member personally, or write collectively to a board), but there is no stated procedure in place to have influence… only to be influenced.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
I’ve come to realize that fellowship involves communication. That communication is of mutual benefit to all parties concerned as they encourage one another. It’s one of the things I’ve been blessed with as I’ve discovered the community aspect of church membership. There seems to be none of that in the FBFI. One of the complaints the younger generation had with my generation is that we weren’t interested in being asked questions or hearing what might be opposing view points. A magazine and preaching meetings are pretty thin gruel.
BTW, at the preaching meetings I used to attend it seemed that any new speaker on the platform was often the next up and coming board member. Is it still that way?
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Mark_Smith]The more active website is called Proclaim and Defend. It has the audio from the meetings plus articles and blogs that people write. For example, the recent Don Johnson blog here at SI on what to do if your church leaves you is from Proclaim and Defend:
If the FBFI wants to boost it’s membership and put P&D as one of their member’s benefits, then they ought to put it behind a paywall. At least then there is a tangible benefit for joining the FBFI. That might boost the membership a little. I know that there is a lot of P&D articles crosslinked to SharperIron, so use SharperIron to promote your ‘brand’.
If the Board doesn’t want to look like a ‘good ol’ boys’ club, then maybe they ought to stop…y’know…ACTING like a good ol’ boys club. It would help if there were someone on the board that wasn’t related six ways to other FBFI Board members.
I’d like to commend Greg Linscott, TylerR, and Chip van Emmerick on this thread. I feel like I and others have raised all these same points on SI in the past (2009 - here; 2012 - here; 2013 - here) about the FBFI, but maybe now that Dr. Bauder has weighed in, someone of importance will notice.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
In defense of the FBFI, to the several hundred who felt the meeting was important and for the ??? [number unknown to me] who pay dues, get their name in a directory, and receive a monthly magazine good for them!
I don’t even care what the position of the FBFI is on Calvinism (I’m a 5 ptr by the way!)
I observe that fellowships are valuable. There’s in informal types where a pastor may connect with other pastors in his own community - be they CME, Nazarene, et cetera. Then the more formal: Eg the MBA (which to commend Greg L who is doing a marvelous job promoting on FB the MBA website (with a nice RSS feed!)). If you are in Wisconsin … don’t join the MBA (M=Minnesota)
In my 3 pastorates I was a part of 1.) The New Jersey GARBC guys. The food alone was worth the time! And the ordinations councils (STUMP the candidate time!) were a hoot!; 2.) The FFBC (Joe Roof’s group). Nice time at Tri-State and very godly guys. They tolerated my 5 pointedness and my use of an alterative version to the KJV when everyone else used the KJV.; 3.) And when in Colorado the RMARBC (Rocky Mtn GARBC). Still friends with folk there!
The FBFI does not purport to represent all fundy Baptists. Proclaim and Defend has some valuable material. Don J does a good job with that. I read it all and chew and swallow some and spit out some bones of what I don’t like. I also subscribe to the Baptist Bulletin (the officlal GARBC organ). This is a great magazine by the way and you don’t have to be in a GARBC church to subscribe.
To all Calvinists who are offended that the FBFI is not … find or start a Calvinist Baptist group. I’ll join!
Of course you’re right, Jim… it’s their party and they can cry if they want to… ;-) But I was responding to Bauder’s observation, which I will reproduce again:
“The younger pastors have been trained to value preaching that directly reflects the text of Scripture. They also tend to lean toward some version of Calvinism. By featuring pulpit allegories and by attacking mainstream Calvinists, the FBFI is more likely to drive young leaders toward conservative evangelicalism than it is to attract them to its own valuable positions. It would do well to cease featuring non-expositional treatments of the Word of God, and it would do well to adopt a more welcoming stance toward mainstream Calvinist fundamentalists.”
Whatever else, it seemed that there is a depletion of the ranks, and at least one person is seeking to offer critiques to reverse that trend. My comments were made along a similar vein.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Agreed. Thanks
[Greg Linscott]Of course you’re right, Jim… it’s their party and they can cry if they want to… ;-) But I was responding to Bauder’s observation, which I will reproduce again:
“The younger pastors have been trained to value preaching that directly reflects the text of Scripture. They also tend to lean toward some version of Calvinism. By featuring pulpit allegories and by attacking mainstream Calvinists, the FBFI is more likely to drive young leaders toward conservative evangelicalism than it is to attract them to its own valuable positions. It would do well to cease featuring non-expositional treatments of the Word of God, and it would do well to adopt a more welcoming stance toward mainstream Calvinist fundamentalists.”
Whatever else, it seemed that there is a depletion of the ranks, and at least one person is seeking to offer critiques to reverse that trend. My comments were made along a similar vein.
I was in the meeting and don’t recall anything like the reported attack against Calvinists. I don’t know how Kevin came to view the comments as he did, but I didn’t come away with the same impression of them.
Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3
Bauder mentions them. Its not clear to me.
what’s a pulpit allegory?
[Mark_Smith]Bauder mentions them. Its not clear to me.
Hoping to shed more light than heat..
[Rob Fall]what’s a pulpit allegory?
Mark_Smith wrote:
Bauder mentions them. Its not clear to me.
It is application-heavy preaching where the text doesn’t speak directly. Expositional preaching explains the historical milieu and gets all of its points from the text and then applies the application in a careful and valid way. Allegorical preaching is when the preacher wants to say something and then finds some text that seems similar to his idea that he can use as a spring board to launch into his rant. It usually has no bearing on what the text means historically or the greater biblical context.
This is not a very good explanation as I haven’t heard any allegorical preaching in a while. Others, I’m sure could give better examples or definitions. I never give churches or preachers the time of day if they are allegorizing as it is generally dishonest and agenda driven. Do preachers really want to be lying scribes (Jer.8.8)? The kind of scribe Paul tells Timothy to be is one who makes careful distinctions (take every effort to be a worker unashamed who teaches the message accurately). Christ speaks about a NT scribe as exactly making these distinctions: “taking from his treasury old and new” (Mt.13.52).
"Our faith itself... is not our saviour. We have but one Saviour; and that one Saviour is Jesus Christ our Lord. B.B. Warfield
- Depravity: “man is a sinner by nature and by choice, completely depraved, destitute of any moral good, and utterly unable to merit God’s favor or contribute to his salvation” / Comment: Seems like you would have unconditional election with this statement?!
- Election / Perseverance: “We believe that God secures and guarantees the final salvation of every true believer, and that the genuine believer will continue in his faith and show evidence of his faith in Christ until he meets the Lord. We believe all the elect of God, once saved, are kept by God’s power and are secure in Christ forever”
- Crosswork: “We believe the Lord Jesus Christ died as a substitutionary sacrifice for the sins of all men according to the Scriptures, and all who receive Him are justified on the grounds of His shed blood (2 Cor. 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:21; Rom. 3:21-26; Heb. 2:9; 1 Jn. 2:2).”
Comment: Seems compatible with 3-4 pt Calvinism. M Harding is a FBFI guy and as I recollect he is 4 ptr.
I suspect some four point Arminians could agree with the statement on election. It leaves some room for interpretation. That being said I have listened to several Mike Harding sermons and he is definitely Calvinistic. I am pretty sure Minnick is too. I have noticed in personal experience that some FBFI guys that I talk too seem to be on the low end of the moderate Calvinist spectrum but react very strongly to those who are on the higher end or are five pointers. That is just my experience.
This is all I needed to know about the attitude of the FBFI and its attitude toward Calvinism and the younger generation.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=56091910360
I’ve long enjoyed fellowship with non-calvinists and even a few professing Arminians. Danny Sweatt’s embarrassing sermon received no comment from the FBFI and assured more than a few of the younger generation that they were not welcome.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[Ron Bean] Danny Sweatt’s embarrassing sermon received no comment from the FBFI and assured more than a few of the younger generation that they were not welcome.
http://sharperiron.org/article/time-to-speak
Besides attempting to deflect the criticisms of the younger fundamentalists, Pastor Sweatt engages in an astonishing diatribe against Calvinism. He actually suggests that Calvinism is going to force a reopening of the question of biblical inerrancy. He argues that Calvinists refuse to acknowledge the authority of Scripture because they do not believe the Bible until it is interpreted through their theological system.
Besides claiming that Calvinism attacks the authority of Scripture, Pastor Sweatt also avers that Calvinism attacks the Bible’s clarity. He thinks that Calvinism lures people away from the simplicity that is in Christ. Calvinists take away the Book, says Pastor Sweatt. They also take away the gospel.
Pastor Sweatt raises still more objections to Calvinism. He claims that it is incapable of supporting church growth and evangelism, and therefore cannot produce a durable movement. He states that it makes God the author of sin. Furthermore, he believes that it poses problems in dealing with people who lack assurance of salvation.
Why does Pastor Sweatt launch this diatribe against Calvinism? Why does he think that it is relevant? Part of the answer is obviously his own dislike of Calvinism, but there has to be more of a reason than that. Evidently, his rationale is that the men to whom the younger fundamentalists are being drawn—men like Piper, Dever, Mahaney, Mohler, MacArthur, and Sproul—are all Calvinists. Pastor Sweatt knows that if he can discredit Calvinism, then he can discredit the most influential wing of conservative evangelicalism.
Pastor Sweatt fails to accomplish that task. His words reveal that he simply does not know what Calvinism is. He has not learned its history. He does not grasp its implications. Lack of knowledge is the most charitable explanation for Pastor Sweatt’s accusation that Calvinists reject biblical authority.
It seems never to have occurred to Pastor Sweatt that people might choose Calvinism precisely because they think it is what the Bible teaches. They are drawn to it, not because it is systematic or philosophical, but because they see it as biblical. Every Calvinist I know thinks of himself as a Biblicist.
http://sharperiron.org/article/nuff-said
All of this brings us to the recent controversy over Pastor Dan Sweatt’s sermon to the South Regional Fellowship of the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International, delivered at The Wilds in April of this year. The message caught the leadership of the FBFI by surprise. The crowd that actually heard it preached was relatively small. Some of the leaders of the South fellowship were not even present and did not know what had been said. I suspect that those who did hear it walked away shaking their heads, happy that Sweatt’s remarks could be buried.
At one time it might have been thought they should not. This is the age of internet communication, however, when nothing is said in private. Pastor Sweatt posted the sermon on his church’s website and on SermonAudio.com. Some who had heard the sermon determined to get it into the hands of people who could respond. And respond they did. Once the message got out, it provoked a storm of protest.
The questions raised by Pastor Sweatt’s sermon are really two in number. First, will fundamentalists continue to excuse and perhaps even employ the flawed modes of leadership that were adopted by imperialists in a past generation? Second, will there be room within fundamentalism for charitable disagreement over issues such as Calvinism, concerning which fundamentalists have never seen eye to eye?
Pastor Sweatt’s sermon exemplified exactly the wrong answer to both of these questions. If the sermon had been delivered to Pastor Sweatt’s own congregation, it might have been simply ignored. Since the sermon was delivered at a regional meeting of the FBFI, however, it presented that organization’s leaders with a choice. To ignore the sermon was to run the risk of lending it credence. On the other hand, a blunt and public rebuke to Pastor Sweatt could have a chilling effect upon the platform of the fellowship by positioning the FBFI leadership as censors over every future speaker. What the FBFI leadership had to do was to find a way of distancing themselves from Pastor Sweatt’s perspectives without coming across as a denominational Sanhedrin.
What the leadership of the FBFI has done is to adopt one of Joel Carpenter’s “intermediate measures.” The FBFI website now features a statement that makes it clear that varying positions on Calvinism have been and will continue to be acceptable within that fellowship. It calls for charity and fairness in the discussion of all issues.
Actually, Jim, I am kind of inclined to agree with Ron on this one. Here is the entirety of the FBFI’s statement on the Sweatt matter:
Speaking the Truth in Love
There has been a lot of interaction and discussion over the past few days related to fundamentalism, Calvinism, and how men who disagree with one another ought to express those disagreements. The FBFI has always included both Calvinists and non-Calvinists because we recognize that godly men can agree with one another on the fundamentals of the faith while disagreeing with one another in this area. In any disagreement, we must represent one another fairly and treat one another charitably. To make this a test of fellowship among fundamentalists has not been the position of the FBFI and will not be our position.
The only way we can maintain unity on the fundamentals of the faith is if we learn how to express our disagreements on other points in a way that does not damage that fellowship through unbiblical communication. We must honor our biblical responsibility to use speech that edifies and displays Christ-like love. We must demonstrate an unwavering commitment to humble integrity. Caricatures and personal attacks do not honor the Lord or advance His work. Neither pulpit nor keyboard exempt us from these biblical obligations.
Dr. John C. Vaughn, President
Dr. Bradley Smith, Chairman of the Board
Did the FBFI say something? Yes. Was it of any real substance? Well, I didn’t think so at the time and don’t think so after having five years time to reassess. The message that was communicated was that the FBFI was publicly embarrassed and frustrated about Sweatt’s message, but the lack of any kind of public walk-back or significant apology by the FBFI to those who are Calvinistic meant that they were not welcome and that Sweatt’s remarks were OK. Sweatt’s refusal to take the message down - and the fact that he doubled down on it when asked by the FBFI to take it down - drove that point home even further.
Sometimes your walk talks louder than your talk talks. And in this case, the FBFI walk said plenty. So the rest of us walked as well.
"Our task today is to tell people — who no longer know what sin is...no longer see themselves as sinners, and no longer have room for these categories — that Christ died for sins of which they do not think they’re guilty." - David Wells
I’ve been re-reading some of the stuff that was written about the FBFI around the time of the Sweatt sermon. I was reminded of some of the things that turned off the younger generation.
Desire for a new generation of great men to lead them like Jack Hyles, Bob Gray, and others whose faults were far from minor. (I know that the younger generation has been accused of the same thing.)
An attitude among some in the FBFI to those outside of “we don’t want you or need you and we’re fine without you”.
An unwillingness to accept criticism.
An aversion to saying anything positive about anyone outside the FBFI.
Thankfully this is not the majority of the FBFI but it is often seen as the brand they offer.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
As long as some pay membership dues and receive a magazine and benefit from Proclaim and Defend and attend conferences, the FBFI will continue
At one time, the ACCC was something. Now it’s an afterthought.
By the way, I like the way the GARBC has reinvented itself (without changing its doctrinal position) with refreshed material and website. My church (and thus me neither) is not a part of the GARBC but I benefit from Regular Baptist Press, the Baptist Bulletin and their web material. It’s a very attractive organization. Were I a pastor of a non-aligned Baptist church, I would try to direct my church towards the GARBC
I agree with Jim that the ACCC is a shadow of what it once was. It seems that the FBFI is slowly heading in the same direction. I was the pastor of a GARBC church and remember the conflicts in and around the organization in the 80’s. It’s example of good change has been encouraging. It no longer resembles the GARBC I knew back then.
The changes in the SBC have been encouraging as well. I remember the days when the SBC was considered apostate and beyond redemption.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
The real value of true Baptist fellowship is at the state / local level. Examples:
- Let’s have a camp
- Let’s mobilize and have a crisis pregnancy center
- Let’s cooperate and plant a church
- Let’s have refreshing / edifying time for pastors
- Let’s encourage laymen [I abhor the term but I mean the non-vocational peebles in a church] with a retreat
- Let’s get these missionary candidates fully funded and on the field
- Let’s have a Bible college (kudos Baptists of Iowa who got Faith going and laid a solid foundation with financial support and students!)
- Etc.
The state and local level .. that’s where things happen
[Jim]By the way, I like the way the GARBC has reinvented itself (without changing its doctrinal position) with refreshed material and website. My church (and thus me neither) is not a part of the GARBC but I benefit from Regular Baptist Press, the Baptist Bulletin and their web material. It’s a very attractive organization. Were I a pastor of a non-aligned Baptist church, I would try to direct my church towards the GARBC
I was in a GARBC church when in Omaha (which got a little awkward at times with my own theological perspectives). What I observed in the association at large is that their main focus is not on perpetuating the GARBC brand, but on just doing Christ-honoring gospel proclamation, discipleship, worship, etc. Kind of like the Bible describes. :) When you listen to John Greening, you hear someone who rejoices in what God is doing here, there, and everywhere, instead of hand-wringing about theological trends. It sets a good tone. They’re staying in a more or less conservative course themselves, as an organization and what they promote, while allowing for breadth “out there.” It is a good example of thoughtful, level-headed, properly motivated change.
Michael Osborne
Philadelphia, PA
M Osborne brings up a good point about the GARBC’s growth and good change. Back in the stressful days of the GARBC, one speaker spoke of the degeneration od fellowships and associations by describing four stages. #1 Fight the Battle # 2 Raise The Standard #3 Create a group to maintain and defend The Standard #4 Maintain and Defend the Group
In the old days, you were expected to pledge your loyalty to the GARBC (I was asked the question at my ordination council) and anyone in the GARBC who associated with or spoke well of someone outside of the GARBC was looked on as suspicious. I’m thankful things have changed.
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
When the GARBC dropped approval of agencies things improved for them. In the local church there was issues about whether a kid was going to an approved school or not. And when a church called a man, whether he went to an approved school. And then among the schools there was such variety - Cedarville, Faith, Denver, Takoma Wash, LABC, Grand Rapids, Spurgeon (which was the weakest and the campus was a spanish moss covered camp area), and Clarks Summit. LABC failed to become The Master’s College. Some felt the GARBC leadership “lost the school”. Grand Rapids merged with GRISBOM (Grand Rapids School of Bible and Music) and then became much more of a liberal arts school. Cederville has wavered one way and another and now is conservative again (good for them). Spurgeon sank into a swamp (exaggeration but if you have been to where the campus was … it was tropical!) and died. Denver failed to have critical mass and merged with Faith. Not sure what happened to seminary in Washing. State.
Then they had the approved mission boards: There was Hiawatha in Mi (might have only been State approved). EBM in Kokomo (crashed and burned in dramatic fashion b/c of financial (and in my view - ethical) failure. BMM (Cleveland) = still there and solid; ABWE … has had its own crisis with the sex scandal and cover up w regard to Bangladesh station. Now has righted itself. Then there was a home mission board in the Cleveland area that was doing a good work. Issued bonds or promissory notes and could not pay them back to investors. It failed and was reincarnated as another home church planting agency (forgot the name … Continental?)
When they got out of the business of approving agencies things improved for all.
And unsure of the details.
Someone wants to buy it. It has become very valuable property. They are going to be able to sell the property and move to a less expensive site … and enjoy a windfall
Jim, the school is Wa. Sold to Corban which itself is struggling to pay for the property. As I understand it they are going to start meeting at Mars Hill.
There was Hiawatha in Mi (might have only been State approved)…Then there was a home mission board in the Cleveland area that was doing a good work. Issued bonds or promissory notes and could not pay them back to investors. It failed and was reincarnated as another home church planting agency (forgot the name … Continental?)
Hiawatha eventually became Continental Baptist Missions- http://www.cbmoffice.org/about/history/
I believe the other agency you speak of would be Baptist Church Planters (http://www.bcpusa.org/).
The west coast schools you spoke of were Western Baptist College, Salem, Oregon, and Northwest Baptist Seminary, Tacoma, Washington. They have merged into Corban University.
You also neglected to mention “social agencies” like Baptists For Life, Baptist Children’s Home, and Shepherds.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
Thanks
It’s a fascinating history. I love the GARBC. I’ve been to many of the (formerly approved) agencies.
I’ve been a SS teacher for years. I’ve always found their material strong
We had a great fellowship in New Jersey. There was (and may still be) a South Jersey and a North Jersey fellowship. It was fun to connect with the guys in the North. They have a very fine Christian camp = “New Life Island”. Canoeing and camping on the Delaware river was always a great time.
Paul Tassell (now with the Lord) was the National Rep while I was Pastor. A very able preacher and great leader. I have a funny story about Paul. We had him as dinner guest while had a PG missionary kid living with us - she was very PG. At dinner she was critical of BJU. Dr Tassell was very gracious to her. Later to me he said “had she been at BJU she wouldn’t have gotten PG”).
Discussion