Greg Locke, Fundamentalism and the “Baptist” Label

Some IFB leaders try to control younger men by letting you know implicitly or explicitly that if you change in certain ways, you will lose their approval and you will be displeasing to them. It takes courage for someone coming out of a school like Ambassador to make the changes Locke has made.

Rightly said, Jonathan.

I think some are a bit too quick to see pressure from IFB leaders on younger leaders as a power thing… lacking freedom, requiring courage, etc. Walking away is really not courage. It’s flight. But that’s beside my point.
As with any group, “Fundamental Baptist” has boundaries that define its identity. And, as with any group, some of those boundaries have to do with what has characterized it historically: its traditions. Those who hold those traditions dear should not be faulted for recognizing that if you reject those traditions you are rejecting the identity. You are walking away.
So, yes, sometimes there is intimidation. Other times, there is just a recognition: the society of left handed bowlers does not have room for you if you bowl right handed.

When I first read Jim’s thoughts, I thought that is the fundamentalist in Greg Locke still speaking! I think it’s too soon to turn Greg Locke into the next Billy Graham in all of this. Many a pastor has taken that step prior to Greg Locke, and not turned into the next BG.

I don’t mean to be hard on him.
I’m just pointing out that a percentage of what is characterized as thuggery of some sort in the IFB is really nothing more than an effort to preserve the group’s identity. Not an evil thing in itself. It can be, though. Sometimes what’s part of an identity shouldn’t be part of it and hanging on to it gets in the way of matters that should be a higher priority. Other times, it’s harmless enough but some (especially younger guys) find that they reach a point where they can no longer fit the mold. When that happens, walking away is the honest thing to do.

(Best not to burn bridges though. Sometimes what seems absolutely essential when you’re 25 or 30 looks a bit radical to you by the time you’re 45).

I thought that the “I” in IFB meant that you lead your church as the Lord leads you to lead it. He used personal pronouns in the article because he was explaining his rationale for the change. I seriously doubt that he just walked up into the pulpit and told the church, “We’re going to make what will be perceived by some as a radical change and you get no input.” I read the statement and didn’t come away thinking he was looking for a broader base and wider popularity. It sounded like other stuff I’ve seen written by him.

I remember when he splashed onto the scene and was pretty adamant in his positions and seemed pretty abrasive. I’ve not kept up but I will admit to being surprised by this kind of move compared to what I had read previously; however, here’s younger guy in the ministry who sees a problem with tags and how his ministry is perceived. Can’t he just be concerned about exactly what he said—being perceived as a place where the Word of God is preeminent?

I’m really surprised that within 3 posts his motives were being questioned. Like I said, some of his previous interaction here wasn’t what I would have considered edifying and maybe he’s done more here to give cause for some of the prejudgment going on but it seems a little strained. Maybe some of you know more of his ministry than me…

As to the actual name change, this kind of stuff has been going on for awhile. It does seem like a significant shift for Greg considering how he presented himself previously, but hey, all of us grow and change ministerially and that can be good. BTW, many SBC church plants (at least in our area) don’t include “Baptist” in the name any more. Most of them are “very progressive” and wouldn’t be recognizable as Baptist anyway. And yes, some of the shenanigans (and honest mistakes) done by Baptists have scared some folks away from the tag.

What I said was half in jest. You get all up in arms about me insinuating that IFB churches have an egotism present, but yet you were happy to presume that Greg Locke was out for expanding his own personal influence and following Billy Graham’s footsteps. You can’t take shots and not receive any in kind, now.

As for what I said, I stand behind it. There is an emphasis on a top-down authoritarian style of church leadership that is taught and modeled in IFB circles. I know, because I have not only seen that model in full blown operation, but I’ve been coached and trained in my fundamentalist college to emulate it. Forget the egotism, I was referring to that model.

So whereas Greg uses personal pronouns and leads his church out, he does so in the mold of how IFB churches work. Shared leadership, mutual accountability in leadership is the exception not the rule in IFB churches. I happen to think that often this is due to the church size, and obviously this tendency can be more an American phenomenon that supersedes just IFB circles. But it still remains a problem, in my view. A mutually accountable, plurality in leadership is the Biblical model.

Mark said: “here’s younger guy in the ministry who sees a problem with tags and how his ministry is perceived. Can’t he just be concerned about exactly what he said—being perceived as a place where the Word of God is preeminent?”

I totally agree. Thanks for your thoughts.

I do agree, Roland. There is a wide berth of experience in the movement. I was only speaking for part of it. And the problem, as I indicated, is wider than just fundamentalism, too.

I agree with your clarification here. I may have been a little heated in my reply to you, I’m sorry if I was. I don’t think I was giving an “unfair backhanded cut at Fundamentalists” however.

[Aaron Blumer] Walking away is really not courage. It’s flight.

Sometimes it requires courage to flee as well. Unless you’ve actually walked the path away from some of the arms of the IFB network, you might not know that. I can assure you that sometimes it takes more courage to walk away from it than it would to stay in it.

That might have sounded a bit harsh.
I’ve never had any “arms” to walk away from, so I truly don’t know what that would be about. I’m sure the stakes are higher when you have a lot of relationships and interdependencies with whatever it is you’re walking away from. Not so much if you’re mostly laboring quietly in a “small place.”

It is interesting to me though… sometimes people are critical of the fundies of a couple generations ago for pulling away from the denominations they were part of rather than staying and fighting. Sometimes the same people are pretty critical of fundamentalists who stay and fight for fundamentalism rather than walking away. We live in interesting times.