Category: IFBx

Sunday Evening Services: Helpful or Not Helpful?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 14 Comments

smallchurch“I Want to Be More than a Sunday-Go-To-Meeting-Christian,” says an old-time song. For many, that means we take pride in attending church every time the doors are open. Some church traditions have a mid-week service and others have a Sunday evening service, with many having both. These, of course, are in addition to the Sunday School hour and the Sunday morning worship service.

But in Evangelicalism lately, more and more churches are abandoning the Sunday evening service. Is this a move toward a “lite” version of Christianity? Are such churches compromising or lowering their standards?

Most of the time the answer is clearly no. There are a variety of reasons for abandoning the Sunday evening service. And one reason is that the tradition of a Sunday night service is relatively new. The notion of a Sunday evening service dates to the revivalist days of the 1800s where this service would often be evangelistic in nature – and an early draw was the modern innovation of gas lamps or even electric lighting. But this is not entirely a new idea. Earlier, in both the Reformed and Puritan traditions, there were often second services held in the afternoon (when it was still light). The second service was often for catechism, and spending the day at church helped prevent people from profaning the Sabbath.

There is nothing wrong with additional church services, but we must remember that the very notion of a church service is not possible in some scenarios where the church is persecuted. Certainly the custom of the Church has had to change over the years. It appears that an evening service was the only one possible when slaves were members in NT times (and they had to work 7 days a week). Culture and regional preferences resulted in a variety of traditions over the centuries. The Bible doesn’t mandate specific meeting times, other than an emphasis on meeting on the Lord’s Day. We should not be hesitant to adapt to the culture we find ourselves in. Our age is so busy, that packing in an extra service on the Lord’s Day usually doesn’t lead to a more restful and worshipful reality. More services might be better, but must all worship and study be done in a formal church gathering? In many churches, the faithful are worn out from all the service they render for the church and don’t have enough energy left to get much out of the final service of the day. It seems the more active a church is, the more services it requires of its members–and the more obligated and stretched these members feel.

Many consevative churches eschew the evening service to make small groups easier to schedule. It isn’t about avoiding church so much as encouraging more effective ministry and fellowship. Other churches don’t want to ask too much of people preferring their members to focus on the primary message and enjoy rest and fellowship with their families.

An extra service may weigh down the congregation. It can become a measuring stick to see who is performing well. My legalistic heart and background probably clouds my perception, but I find such demands burdensome and have a hard time resisting the urge to measure up every chance I can. Worship should be about the Lord, not about us checking off boxes or jumping through hoops. Personally, I enjoy the freedom of an extra night with family – and more time to think on the things I’ve heard and studied. Every other Sunday afternoon we host a small group in our home. We can do this much more easily without the extra burden of another service.

I’m spurred to share my thoughts on this in light of a recent article from a Fundamental Baptist leader, Paul Chappel. His article is not intended to offend, but it is almost impossible not to read between the lines and see what he really thinks of churches that don’t have a Sunday evening service. Another pastor recently shared a response that was charitably written and helpful. Reading the two posts back to back can give a fuller picture and provide a helpful contrast in evaluating this topic.

Don’t get me wrong, Sunday evening services can be wonderful. There is nothing wrong with churches choosing to meet regularly in this way. But neither is there anything wrong with churches choosing to drop such a service. May we view people on both sides of this question with respect and love. May God bless us as we seek to follow Him more closely, in our families and our churches.

Here are the posts for your further consideration and I welcome any comments below.

“IFBx”: A Definition

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

Recently the question came up in a discussion group I’m a member in, as to what the term “IFBx” stands for. Defining that term is an interesting exercise and worthy of its own post.

I first heard the term from Ryan DeBarr, who was a regular at the FFF (Fighting Fundamentalist Forums) back in the day, and who had a blog back in the mid 2000’s. It stands for “Independent Fundamental Baptist extreme” or extreme IFB. I can’t remember all the details surrounding the use of the term, and I’m sure everyone uses it differently.

In my case, very soon after abandoning the IFB movement altogether, I came to realize that I was overstating things on my blog. I clarified my critique of fundamentalism to hone in on the IFBx part of fundamentalism more particularly. I have maintained since then (early 2006) that I do not believe everyone should abandon the IFB movement wholesale. There are healthy IFB churches and a positive trajectory to be found in many branches of the movement. Furthermore, Fundamentalism has much to teach Evangelicalism about the weightiness of truth and the importance of holiness. Far too often such matters are brushed off as “legalistic” without a second thought. That being said, there is much that is not healthy in IFB churches and particularly among those I would consider extreme fundamentalists.

To help flesh out more fully what I mean, I’m going to string together two excerpts from earlier posts that I think still capture the heart of what I believe should be understood by the term “IFBx”:

Fundamentalism describes the position of adhering to the fundamentals of the faith and also being willing to separate over these fundamentals. For independent Baptists, such separation usually extends to believers who cooperate with those who deny one or more of the fundamentals. And the movement dictates how such separation looks and around which personalities it centers.

Hyperfundamentalists, also known as IFBx, elevate cultural standards to the level of doctrine, and separate accordingly. Many leaders in this group exert an inordinate control over the lives of their followers, and demand an almost cultish loyalty. This group also maintains extreme positions, often holding to an almost-heretical KJV-only position.

Admittedly, the division between these two groups can be somewhat arbitrary. And we are obviously speaking in generalities. There are similarities between both groups, and that is part of the reason why I have left independent Baptist fundamentalism altogether. But the differences remain. And these differences can be very large and defining…

[excerpted from “Responding to Error: A Comparison Study between Fundamentalism and Hyperfundamentalism“]

The [branch of] fundamentalism I came from is often termed IFBx (extreme fundamentalism). I think the definition fits, although I tend to think an asterisk is called for. My alma mater, for instance, is not into the blatant man worship and ultra traditionalism which permeates those who rightfully own the IFBx label. They find Scriptural reasons (using sound hermeneutical methods, for the most part) for the standards and positions they adhere to. In fact, I am thankful for the emphasis on Scripture and a serious devotion to Christ that I inherited from this branch of fundamentalism.

It is the positions they hold and how tenaciously they hold them, which makes that branch of fundamentalism extreme. Some of the positions they hold, such as KJV onlyism and the teaching that women should not wear pants are extreme in the sense that there is so little clear teaching in Scripture which demands these positions. The few verses claimed to support them have other obvious interpretations available. Yet only one interpretation is allowed. Other positions which may have a larger Scriptural support, are held in such a way as to say that only their own interpretation is correct. If one is not pre-trib rapture, or if they hold to less than conservative music style, or if they hold to any form of Calvinism, they are not only wrong, but worthy of censure and separation. The broader movement of fundamentalism might limit fellowship to some degree over these issues, but they do not “write off” those who hold differing views to the extreme degree that IFBx fundamentalists do.

A further consideration here comes with regard to the extreme emphasis on loyalty and allegiance to personalities. IFBx fundamentalists view any departure from their list of required positions as compromise and disloyalty. This sector of fundamentalism also places an undue emphasis on authority. Any questioning of a position, however sincere and non threatening, is viewed as an attack and a threat to the leader’s ministry. Such a situation begs a complicit adherence to the authority’s list of do’s and don’ts and facilitates an unhealthy separation of external conformity and internal heart worship. With such a stress on outward conformity, it is easy to seek to gain acceptance by men while neglecting the matters of the heart. While the particular circles of fundamentalism I came from were not as extreme in this regard as other IFBx groups, they still hold an undue emphasis on loyalty and conformity, which again puts them as IFBx* in my book.

Within this branch of fundamentalism, there is no liberty to contemplate changing one’s positon on a point or two. Any capitulation from any small point is seen as a departure from fundamentalism en toto, and in reality a departure from the faith! Thus, any break from this branch of fundamentalism (at least a break made by someone who was whole-heartedly embracing all of the points to begin with) is necessarily very dramatic and often final. It also results in much pain in the one leaving. When one emerges from extreme fundamentalism, they do so with a lot of disorientation and a feeling that they will never fit in anywhere ever again! More than doctrinal positions and standards are left behind, one’s very identity is left behind. In a lot of ways, it is very similar to leaving a cult.

[excerpted from “A New and Improved ‘About This Blog’“]

Feel free to chime in and give your thoughts on what IFBx should or shouldn’t mean. Where are you in your assessment of the IFB movement, and more importantly, in your journey of faith?

Three Historic Approaches to Separation

~ Bob Hayton

Just wanted to call your attention to Justin Taylor’s brief history of Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism that he recently shared on his blog. A key section in this brief history, which focuses on the years 1920 through 1962, is Taylor’s thoughts about “three approaches to separation.”

Three Approaches to Separatism

Emerging from this 1957 division, and continuing through the intra-denominational controversies of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod and the Southern Baptist Convention into the 1980s, there was conservative agreement that personal holiness was a necessity and that separation from moral sin was required. But beneath this general principle, there were three overlapping approaches to separation within fundamentalism.

First, there were denominational reformers who believed they should stay within a denomination and fight for its doctrinal and moral purity.

Second, there were denominational separatists who believed that faithful Christians should extricate themselves from denominations and professing Christians influenced by modernism and therefore apostasy.

Third, there were ecclesiastical separatists who were also secondary separationists, refusing to have fellowship with fellow conservative dissenters who did not withdraw from apostate denominations.

What must be noted here, and is often overlooked in discussions of fundamentalism, is that the original fundamentalists were in categories 1, and sometimes 2. But category 3 was largely the result of post-1957 fundamentalism and represents a new phase of development. (Read Taylor’s whole article)

I agree that historically, the third viewpoint on separation gradually grew over time. What fundamentalist critics of John Piper, Mark Dever, Tim Keller and others fail to note, is that often these conservative evnagelical leaders have a lot in common with historic fundamentalists who held to the first approacth to separation. The conservative turnaround of the SBC is testament to the fact that the second and third approaches to separation are not always necessary.

BJU, GRACE and Gospel Hope For the Oppressed

~ Bob Hayton ~ 17 Comments

Last year, Bob Jones University asked GRACE (Godly Response to Abuse in the Christian Environment) to do an independent investigation into alleged shortcomings by BJU in handling reports of sexual abuse. Recently, they terminated their dealings with GRACE and have begun to come under some strong criticism for doing so. Many of us were hopeful with BJU’s initial actions, as it seemed they wanted to move toward greater transparency and change in how they handle allegations of sexual abuse. But now, it appears the university is afraid of what may be found. That’s how it appears, anyway.

I have followed the story loosely, but came across a really good article on this from a blogging friend who is a BJU alumnus: Mathew Sims. His post is worth reading whether or not you are familiar with the details of this case. He applies the gospel to how we should think of allegations of abuse. Here is a link: “Sexual Abuse and the Gospel.”

Another helpful resource is the following “open letter” (actually a Youtube speech to the University) from Pastor Ryan Ferguson, a local pastor in Greenville, SC. His message is clear and shows a concern for the weak and those who have been oppressed. Oh that fundamentalism as a whole would share this pastor’s heart rather than always trying to save face and putting institution above people.

UPDATE: BJU renewed the original contract with GRACE to go forward with the independent investigation GRACE had started, see the links to the press releases in this comment below.

Leaving the Village

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

village

It takes a great deal of courage to follow the Lord’s call and leave the only church you’ve ever known. When I shared my story of leaving extreme fundamentalism, I was trying to deal with the trauma in one sense, but I also wanted to find camaraderie and support from others via the internet. I had become aware that I wasn’t the only one experiencing the turmoil of finally seeing the world through different eyes.

Over the years, I’ve had numerous expressions of thanks as people have commented on my blog posts or contacted me via email or Facebook. I’ve also had my share of ill-will directed toward me, as people assume that our dramatic change was a cop-out and an excuse to live it up in the world. In truth, it was the hardest thing my wife and I ever did: we risked alienating ourselves from both sides of our family and ruining the only real friendships we had.

There are now a lot of ex-fundamentalist blogs out there. And there are a host of other “survivor” type blogs as well. Some exaggerate the problems of fundamentalism, others jettison any connection with Christianity at all. The internet is a mixed bag, for sure. But it has helped shed light on the beliefs and practices of any group. Mormons have found the internet and are starting to see the problems in their church’s historical dogmas. And countless others have been rescued from cults as they do their own secret internet research.

Like anything, the internet in the wrong hands can be bad. But the truth is not ashamed of honest inquiry: which is why Christianity has and will only continue to flourish in the internet age.

I say all this by way of introduction as I want to direct your attention to a new blog from a Facebook friend of mine. It is called Leaving the Village and describes his own exodus from a legalistic, controlling faith community. His story is very similar to mine, in some respects. And for those struggling to decide how to proceed in their own faith journey, reading his story may be a blessing. He doesn’t try to trash his former church but is sharing his heart and how it felt to go through the process that lead to his “leaving the village.”

In his message to me he shares his motivation for the blog:

Hey Bob, your blog and story were a huge help to me when I was walking away from ——. Just simply knowing I wasn’t alone was one of the biggest things I needed to see.

I just started a blog to try to tell my story and help young guys in the same way you helped me. I’m trying to get the word out about it, but I’m not linking directly through my own social media yet. I don’t want my former pastor to just dismiss the blog as a hit piece. I’m writing with a bit of anonymity, but not pulling any punches.

Anyways, I was wondering if you might consider reading the first post and possibly sharing it on your blog. No pressure, I just wanted to ask you to consider it.

Regardless of what you do, thanks again for the encouragement you gave me.

Go over and read his first post. Then bookmark his site, as it promises to be good reading.

Here is an excerpt to get you started:

It’s hard to imagine unless you’ve been there. One decision, one moment changing the whole course of your life and the life of your family. Regardless of your story, everyone faces life changing decisions at some point, but the feelings of angst and terror seem to be multiplied when those decisions involve leaving a religious cult.

I know, the word cult is a loaded term. It’s also pretty polarizing. Those within the cult never see it as a cult. If they did, they would leave. But those outside it look back in and, at least in my case, ask questions like, “How did I stay duped for so long?” or “Why do people stay?” Calling something a cult has far less to do with its message and far more to do with its methods. But again, that’s a subjective definition that someone inside a cult is bound to disagree with….

My goal is not… to correct misguided beliefs or point out the flaws of others. We all hold presuppositions, more than we care to admit, and attempts at correcting your presuppositions will only go as far as you allow them.

Instead, I want to share my story–a story of angst, a story of searching for truth, a story of a guy looking for a God who was there all along, guiding each step of the journey. I know my audience is small. Not too many people grew up in “a village.” But if you’re one that did and you’re reading this, then know this, you are not alone. Rather than try to convince you of one position against another, I simply want to meet you in the journey and share in the feelings and longings that can be down right terrifying.

My prayer is that you know the road you walk is not one walked alone. Leaving the village and embracing the mystery of a life of faith in Jesus was the best thing that ever happened to me.