Tag: standard

“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?

An Accurate Assessment of Christian Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 15 Comments

I came across an excellent article written by Steve Whigham, a graduate of BJU (apparently) and former administrater/faculty member of Northland International University, now working for World Magazine. [HT: Sharper Iron] His thoughts come with the recent controversy at Northland where the university board fired and then subsequently re-hired Matt Olson as president. Steve points out what others have mentioned, that the controversy was precipitated primarily by Northland’s change in its music. Whether or not that charge (that music is what the controversy at Northland is most about) is correct, Whigham’s rehashing of the history of fundamentalism is worth reading. I have excerpted some of the good parts here, but encourage you to read the whole thing.

This brouhaha about Northland has served to remind me of my reasons for not being a part of the fundamentalist movement. As Whigham points out, the original fundamentalists, historic fundamentalism if you will, prized certain fundamental points of doctrine as worth unifying around and defending. The fundamentalist movement today is prizing doctrines that are not truly fundamental — such as one musical style over another, and unifying around and defending these sub-fundamental doctrines. This is something I don’t see as healthy or helpful. Some of the sub-fundamentals that are being prized may well be good and grand in themselves. But the essence of what fundamentalism entails — prioritizing and defending cardinal truths of the gospel — this essence is lost when something less than the gospel becomes the main thing. I tried to say something to this effect years ago in my post, “Minimizing the Gospel through Excessive Separation.”

Here is the except from Whigham’s article, which you should bookmark as a helpful summary of the history and problem of today’s Christian fundamentalism.

In the late 1960’s and following, Fundamentalism mobilized its arsenal to a new battle front: sheltering the Christian faith from the worldly influences of an American culture run amok. Drugs, sex, and rock-and-roll were the targets… As it relates to practical Christian living, for many fundamentalists the mantra became, “It’s better to be safe than sorry.” So, many preachers began to wage campaigns against certain “worldly” behaviors and drew bold lines between the world and the fundamentalist norm. Women’s dress (skirts only, and must cover the knee) must be modest, “mixed” bathing (allowing girls and boys to swim together at the beach or pool) should not be allowed in order to protect each other from youthful lusts, men’s hair length (shouldn’t be over the ear), listening to rock music, smoking, holding hands for unmarried couples, and a host more, became not only expected behaviors within Fundamentalism, but was also touted as clear biblical mandates….

By the end of the 1980’s, the fight against modernism and German higher
criticism appeared to be over, but the fighting spirit of the movement continued… The battle lines were no longer being fought over the core doctrines of the faith (as was true in the early years) but rather over acceptable behaviors for a fundamentalist. The battles were no longer waged over theology, but over practical Christian living.

Today, there’s a new generation rising up within Fundamentalism which has little to no connection to the historical roots of the movement. These young millennials see a community led by perpetually angry leaders obsessed and divided over issues that have little to do with the more important expressions of Christian doctrine. What they perceive instead is a movement that is more about arbitrary command and control tactics to subdue behavior than about Christ’s core intentions for mankind. It’s a battle that appears to them as having shifted away from morals to mores. Many younger members of fundamentalist communities are no longer seeing “the Fundamentalist Cause” as worth fighting for and are choosing to leave the community for less rancorous pastures. What Fundamentalism is currently experiencing is, with a few exceptions, a decline in church attendance, a drop in fundamentalist school enrollment, and even a sharp reduction in the number of fundamentalist pastors and missionaries being sent out.

Fundamentalism is shrinking quickly and losing its next generation. As Fundamentalism shrinks, the remaining voices in the movement are becoming more shrill. In their sermons and blogposts you can sense the desperation….

In the beginning, the issues Fundamentalism chose to rally around united a community. They united because: (1) the issues were authentic fundamentals and (2) unity was still valued as a vital doctrine of the faith. By today’s use of slash-and-burn rhetoric against anyone with a different take on a point of Christian liberty, unity has been devalued. In order to protect the enclave, Christ’s call for unity has been stripped of all its moral weight. Currently, the issues most “surviving fundamentalists” are now opting to rally around divide rather than unite. And as long as their current fields of battle remain the same, I cannot see the end of the shrinking anytime soon….

A Third Option for Separation: Tetreau on Type A, B & C Fundamentalism Again

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Back in 2006, Pastor Joel Tetreau posted a three part series at SharperIron.org called “Three Lines in the Sand”. In it, he explained the landscape of fundamentalism in terms of Type A, Type B and Type C fundamentalists. You can still read that original series of posts at Sharper Iron: part 1, part 2 and part 3.

Type A is the traditional, hard-line fundamentalist who won’t budge on music or other cultural issues and doesn’t see any need to fellowship with those who disagree with him. Type B were those like Tetreau who didn’t mind moving beyond the boundaries of the fundamentalist movement for fellowship and cooperation, but nevertheless self-identified as fundamentalists — holding to the fundamentals and a practice of separation. Type C fundamentalists were the conservative evangelicals who shared ideals with fundamentalists but not the name and had no organic connection with the movement.

This week, Tetreau has revisited this topic and gives some more observations about where we are now, five years removed from his original series. His post is well worth the read and has already attracted a lot of interaction in the comments at Sharper Iron.

I wanted to excerpt his description of the fundamentalist types as well as his view of a “third option” for separation. Then I have a few comments on his taxonomy.

Joel’s Taxonomy

Type A fundamentalists are those fundamentalists who emphasize a first and second degree separation with militancy. Typically with these brothers, fellowship or separation is an “all or nothing” proposition. Another common characteristic with this group is a kind of sub-culture identity that not only separates them from the secular world but from the rest of evangelical Christianity. There is very much an “us vs. them” identity. Type A men would in the main not view Type C men as fundamentalists. This is probably the chief difference between Type A and Type B fundamentalists. Type A fundamentalism holds that it needs to not only protect the gospel but a specific set of sub-Christian ecclesiastical practices and forms that are especially clear in the typical Type A congregation’s corporate choice of music.

Type B fundamentalists like myself, while growing up under and holding on to much of the heritage found in Type A fundamentalism, do not believe the Scriptures teach an “all or nothing” approach to separation and unity. Type A’s generally feel that there simply is really no arena where they could have any kind of real ecclesiastical co-work with a conservative evangelical. Type B’s disagree. We believe there a variety of occasions where fundamentalists can and should have co-ministry with those that self-identify as conservative evangelicals. This is especially true of those evangelicals who are militant and even separastistic. The recent flap over the Elephant Room “second edition” demonstrates that many conservative evangelicals know how to be both militant and even separatistic from other evangelicals when the gospel or orthodoxy is blurred!

Type C fundamentalists are evangelicals who, while not participating in the more Type A or Type B fellowships and not calling themselves fundamentalists (mainly because of the way many in Type A and Type A+ fundamentalism believe and behave), are in fact part of the fundamentalist heritage because of their gospel militancy, their clear commitments to the fundamentals of the faith and the veracity of Scripture, and their willingness to do “battle royal” against an ecumenical agenda. Examples of this approach include men such as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever and a host of younger men who are clear on the gospel, clear on truth and willing to stand especially against evangelicals who are spineless—or clueless—on theological veracity.

Joel’s “Third Option”

Over the last few decades of ministry I have become convinced that the Type A fundamentalist’s aim to separate from all evangelicals or evangelicalism carte blanche is at best, biblically unhealthy and, at worst, sinfully schismatic to the body of the Christ. Not only have they thrown the poor baby out with the bathwater; but they’ve also condemned the whole nursery as if it was contaminated with some kind of an ecclesiastical leprosy! You slapped the initials “NE” (New Evangelical) on the poor baby’s forehead just knowing that eventually he’d be the next Billy Graham!

Some Type A’s might object that this means I must be for ecumenicalism, because they have been trained to think in the “us vs. you” mentality. They demonstrate the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option that is better than “we separate from everybody or we separate from nobody.” That third option is we cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our “camp” or “group.” You would think this reality would be near the Christianity 101 level.

[headings and the bolded emphasis in the last paragraph, are mine.]

I don’t want to excerpt more than this because you’re really going to want to read his whole piece. One area of difference I have with Joel (besides being a Type C fundamentalist — Joel is a Type B), is that he limits fellowship to just the Type C’s rather than those who are perhaps a Type D.  I’m referring to those who are further removed from the mindset of militancy, but who nevertheless respect the fundamentals and are confessionally based. I notice John Piper, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller and the like, are not listed as Type C fundamentalists – yet I would argue each in his own way does much to stand for the fundamentals of the faith against the inroads of modernism and liberalism (and a whole host of other -isms). They may not have that “edge” or sharpness about them in their critique of other movements in Christianity. They may not be as shrill as fundamentalists typically would like. They may not have pronounced as many anathemas over the Elephant Room 2 as some would like, perhaps, but they nevertheless are leaders who represent a mindset that Type B and C fundamentalists should respect and cooperate with.

Still, Joel’s explanation of Type A, B, and C has really helped me in my thinking through the tangled reality of fundamentalism and evangelicalism over the years. And I’m happy he is continuing to expound on his simple matrix for processing how we can “cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our ‘camp’ or ‘group’.” That is the spirit I see exemplified in Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, and embodied in his call for unity in John 17. May such a spirit of cooperation and unity continue to spread among fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals everywhere.

John Piper on Entertainment's Danger to Our Souls

~ fundyreformed ~ 2 Comments

John Piper gives some excellent thoughts on why he doesn’t have a TV. This is not a rule he enforces on others, nor is he asking everyone to ditch their TV. But all of us should consider the important warnings he offers regarding the effect tv and movies can have on our souls. Read the entire article, but I’ve provided an excerpt from the meatiest part below.

I think relevance in preaching hangs very little on watching movies, and I think that much exposure to sensuality, banality, and God-absent entertainment does more to deaden our capacities for joy in Jesus than it does to make us spiritually powerful in the lives of the living dead. Sources of spiritual power””which are what we desperately need””are not in the cinema. You will not want your biographer to write: Prick him and he bleeds movies.

If you want to be relevant, say, for prostitutes, don’t watch a movie with a lot of tumbles in a brothel. Immerse yourself in the gospel, which is tailor-made for prostitutes; then watch Jesus deal with them in the Bible; then go find a prostitute and talk to her. Listen to her, not the movie. Being entertained by sin does not increase compassion for sinners.

There are, perhaps, a few extraordinary men who can watch action-packed, suspenseful, sexually explicit films and come away more godly. But there are not many. And I am certainly not one of them.

I have a high tolerance for violence, high tolerance for bad language, and zero tolerance for nudity. There is a reason for these differences. The violence is make-believe. They don’t really mean those bad words. But that lady is really naked, and I am really watching. And somewhere she has a brokenhearted father.

I’ll put it bluntly. The only nude female body a guy should ever lay his eyes on is his wife’s. The few exceptions include doctors, morticians, and fathers changing diapers. “I have made a covenant with my eyes; how then could I gaze at a virgin?” (Job 31:1). What the eyes see really matters. “Everyone who looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Better to gouge your eye than go to hell (verse 29).

Brothers, that is serious. Really serious. Jesus is violent about this. What we do with our eyes can damn us. One reason is that it is virtually impossible to transition from being entertained by nudity to an act of “beholding the glory of the Lord.” But this means the entire Christian life is threatened by the deadening effects of sexual titillation.

All Christ-exalting transformation comes from “beholding the glory of Christ.” “Beholding the glory of the Lord, [we] are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another” (2 Corinthians 3:18). Whatever dulls the eyes of our mind from seeing Christ powerfully and purely is destroying us. There is not one man in a thousand whose spiritual eyes are more readily moved by the beauty of Christ because he has just seen a bare breast with his buddies.

But leave sex aside (as if that were possible for fifteen minutes on TV). It’s the unremitting triviality that makes television so deadly. What we desperately need is help to enlarge our capacities to be moved by the immeasurable glories of Christ. Television takes us almost constantly in the opposite direction, lowering, shrinking, and deadening our capacities for worshiping Christ.

One more smaller concern with TV (besides its addictive tendencies, trivialization of life, and deadening effects): It takes time. I have so many things I want to accomplish in this one short life. Don’t waste your life is not a catchphrase for me; it’s a cliff I walk beside every day with trembling.

TV consumes more and more time for those who get used to watching it. You start to feel like it belongs. You wonder how you could get along without it. I am jealous for my evenings. There are so many things in life I want to accomplish. I simply could not do what I do if I watched television.