Tag: opinion

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.

Spirituality, Homosexuality and the Primordial Cosmic Unity

~ Bob Hayton ~ 2 Comments

Recently, I’ve explored the issues of homosexuality. I reviewed The Complete Christian Guide to Understanding Homosexuality edited by Joe Dallas and Nancy Heche (Harvest House) and Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill (Zondervan). Both books demonstrate concern and awareness of the plight of people struggling with same-sex attractions yet still aiming to be committed to the Christian call for sexual chastity.

Yes, I do believe Christianity calls us to live a life devoted to holiness and that does mean no sex outside of heterosexual marriage. We are to live in light of God’s created intent for this world: one man, one woman together in mutual love and submission for life, as husband and wife. But this is a fallen world and we all battle sinful urges which compel us to violate God’s standards for a holy life. Innately, and biologically even, we are driven toward pride, dishonesty, sinful strife, jealousy, and yes we are drawn to fantasize sinfully over objectified people of either gender. Some struggle one way, others another, but just because we were born as sinners and have a bent toward sinning, doesn’t mean we are not called to “abstain from fleshly lusts which wage war against the soul.”

I wanted to point out a significant book review which brought up something I hadn’t truly considered before when it comes to this controversial topic. Dr. Peter Jones of Westminster Seminary, California, reviews a new book by Jenell Williams Paris, The End of Sexual Identity: Why Sex Is Too Important to Define Who We Are (IVP, 2011). His review is worth the long read as it covers where we are in evangelical Christianity today on this issue. One of the points in his review is “the worldview implications of sexuality”. Without further ado, I want to excerpt a good portion from his review here for your benefit. Please do read the whole review, however.

Such thinking not only ignores biblical morals but also denies biblical cosmology. Homosexuality and other forms of sexual blending have deep religious significance within pagan cults. Paris mentions the berdache, the he/she that appears in over one hundred tribes as a “two-spirit” man or woman who functions in the opposite gender, but she claims we know little about them, except that they perform spiritual rituals (67). She also mentions ethnic groups in Siberia, Borneo and the Philippines that “grant religious roles for those of ambiguous sexual biology or those of same sex attraction” (67-8). Never once does she inquire as to what those religious roles might be, nor the spirituality there practiced.

The End of Sexuality fails to recognize that homosexuals have functioned consistently, from the mists of time and all over the globe, as occultic shamans in all kinds of pagan religions. Mircea Eliade, a world-renowned authority on world religions, and one of the architects of the new spirituality, demonstrates that through time and space a commonplace figure in the pagan cultus is an emasculated priest. This common religious universal, or archetype, is identified with a particular kind of spirituality. We see the myth of a bisexual or androgynous god in ancient Mesopotamian and Indo-European nature religions, as well as in the myths of Australian Aborigines, African tribes, South American Indians and Pacific islanders, all still surviving today. In all these religions, observes Eliade, “ritual androgynisation” is a “symbolic restoration of Chaos, of the undifferentiated unity that preceded the Creation.” Homosexual androgyny, the joining of male and female in the same person, functions in these countless traditional religions as “an archaic and universal formula for the expression of wholeness, the co-existence of the contraries, or coincidentia oppositorum…symboliz[ing]…perfection…[and] ultimate being.”

Homosexuality is not limited here to morals or the lack thereof. It is employed as the attempt to define the very nature of the cosmos as inherently divine. It is for this reason that the Old Testament denounces homosexuality in such strong terms, since it is a sign of pagan religion. Paris’s dismissal of Scripture’s teaching on homosexuality as “the five or six passages” fails to see the injunctions as part of a major polemic against anti-creational paganism. The context of the much-cited prohibition against homosexuality states, “You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan” (Lev 18:3; see Lev 20:23). Leviticus presents sexual activity between two men as an example of the pagan religion of the Canaanites, which the people of Yahweh should avoid. In other words, it is the religion (implicit in the act, in its rejection of God the Creator), more than the morals, which is in view.

Certainly, not all homosexuals see these religious connotations, nor have they come to homosexuality for religious reasons. Nevertheless many contemporary homosexuals see this deep connection. It is what J. Michael Clark, professor at Emory University and Georgian State University, and a gay spokesman, understood about the berdache. Clark, once a Christian, could not find an adequate place for his sexuality in biblical faith, and turned to Native American animism for an acceptable spiritual model. He found in the berdache, this androgynous American Indian shaman, born as a male but choosing to live as a female, “a desirable gay spiritual model,” because the berdache achieves “the reunion of the cosmic, sexual and moral polarities,” that is, the classic pagan “joining of the opposites.” …

Other notable contemporary homosexuals understand their sexuality in occultic religious terms. Professor Emily Culpepper, an Ex-Southern Baptist and now a lesbian pagan witch, sees gays and lesbians, in her words, as “shamans for a future age.” She reserves a spiritual role for homosexuals, for a shaman is “…a charged, potent, awe-inspiring, and even fear-inspiring person who takes true risks by crossing over into other worlds.”

A contemporary gay theorist, Toby Johnson, inspired by the modern-day popularizer of pagan mythology, Joseph Campbell, believes that present-day gay consciousness represents a new religious paradigm, for:

  • it undermines the authority and legitimacy of the institutions of traditional religion;
  • it helps to see the world with a harmonious, non-dualistic vision;
  • in its ecstatic pangs of longing inspired by same-sex beauty, it experiences reverberations and recollections of humanity’s common mystical oneness with Gaia; and
  • it helps humanity to get over dualistic, polarized (male-dominant) thinking, and thus save the world in awareness of common planetary identity.

With the place of homosexuality firmly established as an essential component of cultic and religious nature worship, it was inevitable that a Jungian, June Singer, would give the ultimate expression of the deeply religious importance of homosexuality. She said already in 1977, “the archetype of androgyny appears in us as an innate sense of…and witness to …the primordial cosmic unity, that is, it is the sacrament of monism, functioning to erase distinction…[this understanding of sexuality was] nearly totally expunged from the Judeo-Christian tradition…and a patriarchal God-image.”

Clearly, Singer’s non-binary definition of sex does not fit “a Christian understanding” of creation (34). How powerfully, in its pagan self-understanding, it opposes what Paris also opposes, a “rigid sexual dimorphism” (32). Paris says that “viewing sex on a spectrum…male and female…positioned on the same line, not in two separate categories…makes a credible space for intersex people,” but, alas, such a view also makes an enormous space for occultic spirituality–once the connection of sex with spirituality is made (33).

The theological implications of this opposition to sexual binary categories are enormous. Such naiveté plays into the hands of the non-binary, or non-dual spirituality, which, in its Hindu form, is taking over much of the Western mind and soul. Philip Goldberg, author of American Veda: How Indian Spirituality Changed the West, calls this a spiritual “revival,” based on the Hindu term Advaita, meaning “not two.” The spiritual synthesis, to which progressives believe we are advancing, will be “non-dual,” non-binary. Goldberg declares that Advaita and “non-dual…oneness, unity around non-separation” are “the generic term[s] increasingly used to describe the present and coming spirituality in America””meaning that God and the world are not two.”

I apologize for the lengthy quote, but I wanted Dr. Jones’ case to be established here. This spiritual aspect of homosexuality needs to be understood as evangelicals grapple with the increasing prominence of this issue today. The “otherness” of the Bible’s teaching on this issue should make sense given this wholistic viewpoint. It really is a different spirit and a different religious perspective that fights against the Created order presented in Scripture.

For more on this check out my review of Washed and Waiting: Reflections on Christian Faithfulness and Homosexuality by Wesley Hill particularly. There I explain how I see Christianity impacting those who have homosexual tendencies.

[HT: Sharper Iron Filings]

The Reformed Cast to Interview Me on KJV-Onlyism Tonight

~ Bob Hayton

Today, April 25 at 6pm Central Time, I’ll be interviewed by my friend Scott Oakland of The Reformed Cast on the topic: “What is KJV-Onlyism?”

Additional details of the interview can be found here. You’ll be able to listen live at Talkshoe.com (you can also find a player at Scott’s website: ReformedCast.com). You’ll also be able to download it from there, or via SermonAudio or iTunes (see ReformedCast.com for links or subscribe buttons).

I’ve been interviewed by Scott before on Fundamentalism and Reformed Theology, and am looking forward to being on his show again.

I’m interested if any of my readers have any requests for something I should cover. We have an hour and I’m sure Scott will have his own questions too. I’d love to try to deal with points that readers raise here, however. So feel free to leave your thoughts in the comments.

For the extra ambitious, you can listen to the last podcast I did on this topic over at Understanding Our Times radio.

UPDATE: The audio from tonight’s interview is now available for free download at ReformedCast.com.

Dave Doran on Why the Label “Fundamentalist” Doesn’t Work Anymore

~ Bob Hayton ~ 9 Comments

Dave Doran has posted some reflections on where we are after the Advancing the Church conference, with respect to fundamentalism and conservative evangelicals (or at least where he is coming from). Of course separation and fellowship are the twin concerns for today’s fundamentalists: just how much fellowship can we permit with conservative evangelicals who don’t proudly wear the label “Fundamentalist”? Now that Kevin Bauder has clarified his current stance and hesitations over extending full fellowship to someone like Mark Dever, perhaps Doran sees the need to clarify some statements of his own. In any case, the last few posts on Doran’s blog have been meaty and traced the development of his thinking on these questions over the last 20 years or more.

In yesterday’s post, Doran discussed fences, shibboleths, fundamentalism, non-fundamentalist separatists, and more. His conclusion is worth posting here in full, but I encourage you to read his whole post (or better yet scroll down from here and read the last several “reflections” posts). I’m glad Doran continues to explain his take on things as the questions he’s exploring need to be hammered out by fundamentalists, and have needed to be for several years (or more).

…I am not advocating extending Christian fellowship to those who have denied the faith. I am not advocating toleration of those who do it. Just the opposite, in fact. I am advocating that these very specific questions be the ones that govern our decision making. Those questions are the baseline for fellowship and cooperation. A lot more matters to me than these, but anything other than the right answers here prevents it. The circle of people that can answer these questions satisfactorily is not limited to self-professing fundamentalists. IOW, there are separatists who don’t claim to be fundamentalists. My fellowship is limited to those self-professing fundamentalists who are genuine separatists and also other genuine separatists even if they don’t call themselves fundamentalists.

That last sentence prompts the real question of the hour””will the self-professing fundamentalists build a fence that excludes people who won’t limit their fellowship to only those who claim the label of fundamentalism? Is that label so tied to the essence of the biblical position that to not wear it means you fall on the wrong side of the fence? If so, is that a fence that can be defended biblically and practically?

I agree almost entirely here. I still consider myself a fundamentalist in many respects, but I’m not in a church which considers itself part of the fundamentalist movement. Yet the concern for doctrinal purity and biblical living is equal to or more than what I have found in many fundamentalist churches. I’m interested to hear your take on this, too. Do you agree or disagree with Doran? I’m all ears.