Tag: Baptist

Can the Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) Movement Reform?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 39 Comments


A blogging friend of mine, Will Dudding, recently shared some thoughts on his journey of the last five years or so, since he started blogging. His blog name is The Reforming Baptist, and he is a co-blogger with me on Re:Fundamentals and KJVOnlyDebate.com. After taking a break from blogging the past few months, Will came back to share some of his thoughts on where he’s at in a recent post. I want to excerpt some of his comments and discuss them here, below.

Since I have put blogging on the shelf for the last seven months, I have been learning some things that I needed to be quiet and learn. So, I’ll share them with those of you who have waited to see if I’d ever come back.

Originally, this blog was born out of my increased exposure to theology and ministry philosophy that was more God-centered than what I was accustomed to. So, I wanted to express what I was learning and kind of think through some issues in a public way in order to interact with others out there about it. However, I was very much a frustrated young man who was still struggling in my cocoon. As most of you know, I grew up in the Independent Fundamental Baptist (IFB) environment. After being exposed to life outside of that group, I felt as though I had been hoodwinked all my life and I used my blog to express my frustrations and address all the myths, errors, falsehoods, etc.. that I had bought into. Inadvertently, I learned that I had a porcupine effect on some people. Eventually, I began to sense that very same spirit of dissent in a few members in my congregation. It was then, that I realized that my spirit had probably negatively effected some people whom I was supposed to be leading. We ended up losing one family shortly after I stopped blogging. It was really painful to see them go, but I had to wonder after the fact how much of their dis-satisfied disposition was caused by mine? It took a rebuke from someone close to me that got me thinking about this, and so I knew it was time to quit blogging. I needed to shut up and listen to what God needed to teach me.

Another lesson I learned these past months is that the IFB or Fundamentalist movement, network, culture (whatever you want to call it) is not going to be revived or reformed. Those loyal to it cannot and will not recognize the inherent and fundamental defects of the movement. It will continue to decline from relevance and influence on its own. God doesn’t revive or reform such things. He does so to individuals. There is no use trying to correct the course of Fundamentalism by reasoning with the Scripture because for the most part, Sola Scriptura is not really valued by the movers and shakers in the movement. So, I have learned that it is best to just leave it alone and get my head out of the clouds – I am not going to make a dent in reforming fundamentalism. All I will ever be is a burr in their saddle, an irritation to be put up with should I continue identifying myself with them – not my idea of purposeful existence. I don’t need to be identified with the Fundamental Baptists, the Reformed Baptists, the Southern Baptists or any other group. We can exist in happy obedience to God’s Word and in fellowship with anyone else who is striving to do the same That is truly independence!

I encourage you to read the whole post, as he has some more to say. But I wondered what my readers thought of his judgement of the IFB movement. In my blog’s subtitle for the last several years, I’ve had the phrase “Reforming Fundamentalism (IFB) through Reformed Theology”. Will hasn’t been a full-fledged proponent of Reformed Theology, but he has been a reforming fundamentalist. I maintain a Reforming Fundamentalists Blog Network, which I need to update, but still includes a list of like-minded IFBs & former-IFBs intent on working toward positive change. That was the idea behind Re:Fundamentals, which also needs updating. One could also argue that the large fundamentalist forums and blog, Sharper Iron, has as one of its aims, the reformation of the IFB movement.

Will brings up the question though, is all this worth it? Will the IFB movement change? Does it want to change? He says it doesn’t. But I think that depends on where you are in the IFB spectrum. Still the recent brouhaha over Chuck Phelps and ABC’s 20/20 show, and the revelation of what many (myself included) consider to be a misuse of pastoral authority, teaches us something. That even in the “sane” wing of fundamentalism, a top-down leadership style, and certain views on authority and sanctification, continue to have drastic consequences. Pastor Bob Bixby, who like Greg Locke, has also walked away from the IFB movement and the Baptist label, recently shared some of his thoughts about continuing problems in the highest ranks of BJU-style fundamentalism. Will and I could give you some stories of other fundamentalist groups that would raise the hair on the back of your neck. I don’t know if I’ve recounted horror stories, but the personal stories and testimonies I’ve shared will give you an eyeful. Here are four accounts for you: a distraught mother, Becca’s story, Greg’s story, and another reader’s story. For a wild ride through the heart of the most extreme version of fundamentalism, you should pick up James Spurgeon’s book The Texas Baptist Crucible: Tales from the Temple.

Over my nearly six years of blogging, I’ve received on average one or two emails a week, it seems, from people appreciating my blog or sharing their own story of journeying through fundamentalism. Hundreds have shared their thoughts in the comments on my blog, but many more in private conversation to me. Many of these have found a new church, some are IFB churches which are much better than where they were before, but many walk away from the movement altogether.

Is the movement really changing? Are such stories decreasing in frequency? Maybe. I know this happened in other generations. Two of my uncles walked away from the IFB movement in the early 80s. Perhaps the internet is helping to escalate the problem. More and more have walked away or have awakened to the issues.

Does this mean we can write ICHABOD in bold across the moniker IFB? I don’t actually think so. Kevin Bauder and Dave Doran, represent glimmers of hope. This conversation between them and Mark Minnick, reveals the heart of these new fundamentalist leaders. Sharper Iron is a place where many IFB pastors and thinkers are discussing issues and seeking positive growth. The Preserving the Truth Conference, even though I don’t agree with some of it’s central values, nevertheless represents a positive movement in fundamentalism. As does Calvary Baptist’s Advancing the Church conference. Standpoint Conference is a mix of those still holding the IFB name and those who are past it, but it is working for a positive expression of fundamentalism for the new century.

Historic fundamentalism is still needed. Independence can be a good thing, as long as healthy interdependence with other like-minded churches is sought out. And Baptist doctrine and practice has hundreds of years behind it, and has proven to be a faith that aims to be as Biblical as possible. So Independent Fundamental Baptists are not a bad thing. What needs to be improved upon, and ejected from the movement, is the man-centered, pragmatic trappings and the baggage from the last 80 years of the movement. One-upmanship, strong-arming, political maneuvering, grand-standing, arrogance and an abrupt dismissal of any church group besides your own — these are all too common in the IFB world. Along with these problems is a fear of education, a resulting ignorance of doctrine, and a love of piety over theology — these problems have conspired to spawn eccentric doctrines and shallow Christians completely cut off from the rest of Christianity (as Will describes). Finally, and most importantly, a legalism silently pervades the movement. Often good intentions mask this legalism: we want to please God and obey His Law, but this is not our means to being accepted by God (either for our salvation or our sanctification). A recovery of the Biblical concept of grace and of the Gospel as being the A-Z of the Christian life (not just the entrance exam) is desperately needed.

There remain many faithful IFB churches who stand on the Word of God and love people. May their tribe increase. To try to reform those who bristle at the mention of the problems I stated above, however, is pointless. I trust, however, that more and more IFB pastors and leaders are willing to admit the problems of their movement. May they be encouraged to reform and renew fundamentalism for the 21st Century and beyond.

Greg Locke, Fundamentalism and the “Baptist” Label

~ Bob Hayton ~ 42 Comments

Recently, Pastor Greg Locke, a well known speaker among both Independent Fundamental Baptists and some Southern Baptist churches, announced that he is removing “Baptist” from the name of his church. Instead their initials GVBC will now stand for Global Vision Bible Church.

Removing the word “Baptist” from the church name is not an uncommon move. The argument is that removing the name makes the church more accessible to some who would shy away from the Baptist label.

In Locke’s case, it means more than dumping the baggage that the title Baptist holds. Instead, he views it as a departure from the IFB movement as a whole. I wonder how much of this is in part due to the recent 20/20 expose on the IFB movement? Perhaps other pastors and churches need to think through this issue themselves. Understandably, this has caused some shockwaves and Locke’s Facebook page was all abuzz with comments good and bad.

I wanted to share his reasoning for removing the name Baptist, and then ask others to chime in on your thoughts related to this. Personally, I’m a deacon at a Baptistic church, that doesn’t have the word Baptist in our name. Yet I’m not necessarily ashamed of it either. That being said, I do think that “being all things to all men” can definitely include modifying the church name (to some extent). And I’m a Christian more than a Baptist anyway.

Here’s the excerpt from Locke in a letter written for his church, explaining the change:

Here is a list of reasons that I feel this is a very important move:

1. Because of our geographic location (Nashville) 95% of any Baptist church is automatically associated with the SBC. While I have many friends in the Convention, we are not affiliated as a church. I preach in some of the greatest Southern Baptist churches in the country but I believe GV should remain Independent in our structure and governance.

2. The IFB “movement” as a whole is totally out of control and I do not personally wish to be identified with it any longer. Legally, our church will still be Global Vision Baptist Inc., Practically, I am worlds away from where I was even 5 years ago and I cannot in good conscience give my full support to a movement that has become nothing more than a mini controlling denomination. I understand that every “camp” of churches has it’s own issues, but I am unwilling to have GVBC submitted to the dictates of a legalistic mindset of man-made regulations. I preach in dozens of IFB churches, but we desire to be truly Independent, even in our identity.

3. The type of families/people we are reaching could care less about such an issue. I have come to realize that people’s lives are so much more important that the name a church has on the sign. We are the church and if we are not healthy as a body it doesn’t matter what the sign says. So many of our people are brand new Christians or are healing from an experience in the same type of church we are distancing ourselves from.

4. Because of our strong emphasis on Powerful Preaching, the term BIBLE would be much more in line with our DNA and overall vision. People say that to remove “Baptist” will take away our identity. Exactly! I want our identity to be nothing but the Word of God. We didn’t start a church so people “like us” would show up. I want a church that is solely built upon the radical principles of the Book. If people know that there is a place like that, they will flock to it. However, if they merely think we are the same kind of church they grew up in, then we won’t even get them in the door. I don’t want our church identity sabotaged by a loyalty to denomination, movement, camp or tradition. I want all my allegiance to God’s Word.

5. Personally, I’m a very hard guy to put in a box. I feel like I have not been true to who God made me to be and it has caused me much frustration. If I were to start the church over again tomorrow, this would be something I would do from the very beginning. God has done so much in my heart these last few years. But overall, I have allowed this constant “identity crises” to become such a focus that it has greatly affected my judgment and my family. I say “NO MORE”. How foolish I have been to seek so much of man’s approval. I am at a point in my life and ministry that if I can’t be who God made me at GVBC, then I must go somewhere that God can use me without the restraints of others that have nothing to do with our church. However, I know this is where God has placed me and I am positive that this is His leading. I’m not dying on the hill of being “Baptist”. But I will gladly lay down my life for the truth of the BIBLE.

We are going to remain as fundamentally sound as we have ever been. We are not changing Bibles or compromising truth. We will continue to keep a red-hot pulpit and build our congregation on expository preaching, soul-winning and world missions. I am grateful for my IFB heritage, but it will not be my future. If others interpret this as an attack on IFB churches, then they have clearly read between the lines. “Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind”. This is not easy, but I know for us it is right. I love you all. Now, let’s change the sign and reach this town for Christ.

[SOURCE …link now not working…]

What do you think? I for one, commend a man who doesn’t walk a party line but is willing to follow God’s leading and stand on his own two feet. I also predict the reaction to this may just prove once and for all that the IFB movement is in fact, a de-facto denomination. Reactions such as this one by Pastor Gary Click, indicate that to remove the name and distance oneself from the IFB movement is taken (by the supposedly “non-movement”) as “separation”, with the result that the true IFBs will then respond in kind.

For more on Greg Locke, you can read an interview that Re:Fundamentals did with him back in 2009. Please, let me know what you think about this. For the record, I don’t necessarily endorse bailing from the IFB movement as the solution for everyone and every church. But it’s hard to argue that the label is falling on hard times.

2 More Essential Reads on the 20/20 IFB Scandal

~ Bob Hayton ~ 6 Comments

First off, Dr. Kevin Bauder recently responded to “The Scandal” which was covered by ABC News’ 20/20 show last Friday. I’ve given my own responses here:

I’m pleased to see Dr. Bauder’s words of caution directed to fundamentalists. Here is an excerpt from his article. He doesn’t dwell on any specific cases but shows what the general reaction to this and many other similar reports by the news media should be on this particular problem.

Our anger (and we should be angry!) should not be directed against the victims who have appealed to other authorities, but against those spiritual authorities who abdicated their responsibility to defend the powerless….

Our first response must be to refocus upon personal integrity. Many accusations are true, but in the present atmosphere the possibility of false accusations ought to strike fear into every minister. All it takes is one, unsupported claim to end a ministry. Consequently, we have a duty to live our lives such that no credible charge can be leveled against us. We must go out of our way to ensure that we avoid even the appearance of impropriety. How? By common sense precautions. We will install windows so that people can see into our offices. We will never be alone with any female other than our wives and daughters. We will never be alone with a child, even of the same sex, other than our own children. We will never touch a minor in any way except in full view of other adults””and we will guard those touches carefully against misunderstanding.

Just as importantly, our second response must be prevention. We cannot change what has already happened, but we can do our best to ensure that it will not happen again. Every church needs a child protection policy. The policy should define when and where adults are allowed to have contact with minors at church activities. It should prohibit adults from being alone with minors in an unsupervised environment. It should require everyone involved in ministry to minors to receive specific training aimed at avoiding abusive relationships. Very importantly, it should require a background check for every church member who works with minors. It should specify procedures for pursuing complaints and suspicions. It should be widely distributed so that every parent knows its provisions. For a good example of such a policy in a secular organization, churches might look at the Cadet Protection Policy of the Civil Air Patrol.

Our third response should involve prosecution. When pastors and church leaders become aware of abusive situations, they should report these situations to police and child protective agencies. In fact, they should do more than to report. They should demand that the authorities take action. Concerns over confidentiality are badly out of place here, as are concerns over 1 Corinthians 6:1-8. Paul was not writing to the Corinthians about situations in which crimes were being committed or the powerless being victimized. In most states, pastors have a legal obligation to report any situation that they even suspect of being abusive. Justice and protection for victims requires action against abusers. Christian leaders have a duty to protect the powerless. Too often have they adopted the role of shielding the abuser.

The fourth response is more systemic, but just as necessary. Baptist fundamentalists absolutely must repudiate those models of leadership that foster abusive and predatory behavior. Too many fundamentalists equate spiritual leadership with bluster, demagoguery, egotism, authoritarianism, and contemptuousness toward deacons, church members, and especially women. We must stop tolerating such attitudes.

Pastoral authority extends no further than the right to proclaim and implement the teachings of Scripture. Pastors must recognize the God-ordained authority of the congregation, and congregations must hold pastors accountable. Churches must seek pastors who focus upon the exposition of Scripture, who are gentle in their dealings with people, who are open and transparent, and who welcome criticism and accountability. Most of all, churches must reject numerical and financial growth as a measure of success and realize that the very first qualification of any minister is that he must give evidence of knowing and loving God.

Baptist fundamentalism has endured dark episodes in the past, but none has been blacker or more ugly that the present hour. We have no one else to blame. We have been too lax for too long. If the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God, then we should welcome the purifying effect that the exposure of sin will have upon us, and we should respond rightly.

I encourage you to read the whole thing.

Secondly, you should read this testimony from Laurie Moody a former member of the church that was highlighted on the 20/20 episode, and one who knows the victim (Tina Anderson) and her family firsthand. Her testimony rings true to me, and also fills in some additional details which seem to answer some of the lingering questions.

On another note, Pastor Chuck Phelps continues to defend himself here, with no clear apology to Tina for the way things were handled. I add his link for those who may not have seen that side of the story yet.

I think this will be my last post on this issue, I just wanted to tie up the loose ends for those getting this news from my site. I do hope that something changes with Phelps’ response that merits a later post, but I’m not expecting anything, unfortunately.

Revisiting Baptism and Young Children

~ Bob Hayton ~ 28 Comments

I’ve considered this question before. As Baptists, when should we baptize our children? A few blog posts recently give reasons why we should or should not delay baptism until our children are more mature (apx. ages 10-12).

First, Trevin Wax gave 4 points on his position relating to this question (which is that we should delay baptizing children until they are around 10 years old or so).

John Starke at The Gospel Coalition Blog then gave 4 reasons why we should baptize small children.

On the heels of these posts, Mike Gilbart-Smith at 9 Marks Blog posted his own “9 reasons why we should not baptize young children“.

For my part, I have a hard time getting around the household baptism passages in Acts. Presbyterians point to household baptisms as evidence of the batpism of small children and infants. Baptists demur and say these passages are silent about the age of children, and often give evidence that all the members of the households evidenced faith. Now, however, when it comes to young children old enough to express faith, Baptists are free to let these children wait in some cases years before affirming their faith through baptism? The very same passages in Acts where all members of a household (presumably including children) believe and then are immediately baptized, now have nothing to say about children below the age of 12. It’s one thing to assume the passages don’t refer to infants, now we are supposed to believe they don’t refer to children under 12? Just who should we include as being in the households of the Cornelius, Lydia, the Philippian jailer and others?

As Starke points out, “the Bible doesn’t seem to give us any examples of an un-baptized Christian”. Furthermore, Justin Taylor in linking to Starke’s post above, added this insight:

There is an irony in the discussion””namely, that Jesus tells us to have faith like a child, and we often tell children that they first have to have demonstrate faith like an adult.

All things considered, at the risk of being considered a closet Presbyterian, I tend to think that the symbolism of Baptism is as much about the objective work of Christ for us (washing our hearts clean), as it is about the subjective experience of our testifying to our belief in the gospel (being buried with Christ in baptism). What happens in Baptism is an identifying with Christ and a celebration of what He has done, ultimately, not what we have done. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for young children who have demonstrated faith in Christ. And since baptism doesn’t save, I am not persuaded by arguments for delaying baptism. I may not agree fully with Vern Poythress’ thoughts about how even 2 and 3 year old children can have saving faith, but I also think he has a point.

I’m interested in what my readers think about this. I understand that some of us find ourselves in churches with an official policy of delaying baptism. I’m not advocating that you disregard your church’s teaching on this subject. Please don’t misunderstand me. But I think a more biblical position is to accept the little children that come to Jesus, and allow them after a period of evaluation, to be baptized.

Preserving the Truth Conference: A Success?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 5 Comments

First Baptist Church in Troy, MI hosted a new conference this past week. The Preserving the Truth Conference had over 350 in attendance and included the following main speakers: Kevin Bauder (president of Central Baptist Seminary in Minneapolis, MN), Dave Doran (pastor of Inter-City Baptist Church and president of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI), Mark Minnick (pastor of Mt. Calvary Baptist Church in Greenville, SC) and Chris Anderson (pastor of Tri-County Bible Church in Madison, OH, blogger at My Two Cents). The conference was a “symposium on Biblical separation”.

It seems to be somewhat of a success, with great discussion in the panel session, and hopes that fundamentalism can work through remaining questions on how to implement separation in faithful and careful ways. The concern is how they relate to conservative evangelicals on one hand, and more right-wing fundamentalists on the other. On the one hand, their stated goal is to “[preserve] the truth through careful separation, robust theology, and cultural conservatism”. Yet it seems apparent that the organizers of the conference are hoping to address issues which are problems in the mind of many young fundamentalists who are leaving fundamentalism for greener, conservative evangelical pastures.

Here are some accounts of the conference (which I did not attend).

Here is the link to the audio or written notes from conference workshops and plenary sessions, as well as some additional material contributed for the initiative.

I’m optimistic about this conference, even though I wonder about the defense of “conservatism” as part of the rescue of Fundamentalism. Also the inclusion of multiple peripheral issues as key points related to the preservation of truth and the Fundamentalist movement doesn’t seem to help in stemming the drift of the young people out of fundamentalism. Still questions are being raised and addressed, and some solutions are being offered. Even though I differ with some of their emphases, I’m happy to see things like this happening, and can hope it has a positive impact in the future. I suppose this is happening elsewhere, but I’m happy to report the reformation of fundamentalism continues.

I hope to listen to some of the audio and interact more on this topic in future posts. I’m discussing some of my initial impressions over at Sharper Iron, right now.

Let me know if you were present at the event, or what your take is on it. Was it a success? Or is it the first step toward lasting and positive change?