Another New IFB

[Fresh Air]

Exactly. This 'illogical reasoning' is the main reason for the rise in the New IFB's.

...not quite. Does it contribute to it? Absolutely. Is it the main reason. Absolutely not. There are several contributing factors, including some that are not quite so altruistic.

 

[GuyfawkesV49]

I forgot that Fugate hung out with Greg Neal . . . Woof! How anybody could still go to Greg Neal's church after watching that video he made is beyond me. I guess Teis is right in pointing out that IFBs since 1980 have been separating over the wrong issues.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

But there're old paths so it's all good. No pants on women and no movie houses, they get passes because they "repented".

Greg Neal never repented.  Recently, the police had enough others finally come forward who were to fearful years ago.  Statute of limitations had run out, so they could not press charges.  Neal claimed it was God chatting his name from the evil rumours by the workers of iniquity.

Clay Co. Sheriff's report.....

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zlhqbut5x4nrqqs/BereanBaptist.pdf?dl=0

 

[Binaca Chugger]

I have family who are long time members there.

Chester Mulligan had pled guilty to such charges and moved to Miami to pastor an IFBx church.  He showed up at Fugate's church and preached in the church and college.  When asked about it by members, the members were told that it was ok, Mulligan is his friend and he is a good guy.

Chuck Harding is shrouded in mystery.  Posters on this site from OBC claim he was dismissed from the church due to indiscretion with female students while pricncipal.  He did lie about his position on government to make people believe he was somewhat important to gain financial support.

Fugate continued to preach with Greg Neal, going to his church to preach at an Old Paths Conference.

Winninger has been there to preach, but I don't know what that relationship is now.

Thanks for the info.
I would bet you dollars to donuts that (at least I hope) that Winninger has not preached their since all that stuff blew up at his church.
It bothers me greatly that Fugate would associate at all with the Neals and allow Chester Mulligan to preach, if indeed he preached after he plead guilty.  Did he not do jail time?
Child molestation is not looked to kindly upon in any jurisdiction.
The Chuck Harding info is still conjecture and I would try to get this info nailed down before I gave credence to it.
A friend of mine works with him in that ministry and I don't think he would cotton too well to know that his partner has that kind of baggage.

Yes.  Mullugan preached there after he pled guilty, before final court date.

Harding's lies about his position to give himself some credence to get money from churches is well documented in another thread.  He has since changed some wordings on his web site to be more ambiguous in his position.  His supposed extra-marital indiscretion is found on this forum, but I have no knowledge of proof other than the forum.

I do not know how Mr. Mulligan was able to find his way into pastoring another church.
It is hideous and completely validates IFB criticisms. 
Sad, utterly sad...
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/former-e-c-pastor-sentenced-for-stalking-sex-charges-dropped/article_3389f55e-3f7d-579e-bed4-653d83fd8b7f.html
https://dannimoss.wordpress.com/tag/chester-mulligan/

Because he "repented" and was restored, oh and he still thinks it's a sin for women to wear pants and a sin to go to the movie house.

But if he thought that it was ok for women to wear pants and wasn't a sin to go to the movie house than he would be to backslidden to even teach a children's Sunday school.

Nope.  Mulligan never repented.  He brazenly told people after the latest conviction that he would stop pastor and grow the church even greater since his sentence had been committed and it was now all over.  God needed him.

(Eye roll)

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Oh.  To the original thought, these are the friends of Fugate.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Oh.  To the original thought, these are the friends of Fugate.

My former pastor used to say, "If I (we) don't get the job done, who will?"

That sounded so spiritual then.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Exactly. This 'illogical reasoning' is the main reason for the rise in the New IFB's.

...not quite. Does it contribute to it? Absolutely. Is it the main reason. Absolutely not. There are several contributing factors, including some that are not quite so altruistic.

From my brief conversation with a couple of the New IFB's that is their contention. But you probably know more about the inner workings of the movement than do I.

 

[Boomer]

For me, the problem with the #oldpaths (or whatever) IFB movement has been (1) Unbiblical preaching (2) Standards (personal applications of Scripture) elevated above actual Bible doctrine (3) Following men rather than Christ and Scripture.

Point #3 is best illustrated to me every time I hear someone speak out against movie theaters. The person who promotes this doctrine is only doing it because the old-time IFB (and other denom) preachers preached against theaters. To preach against theaters today misses the point. The Old-timers weren't against theaters themselves . . . They were against MOVIES completely.
    So if a man preaches against movie theaters, yet has a television in his house, I lose respect for him. The old-time IFB preachers were against watching movies (not a bad idea). It wasn't about WHERE you watched the movie, it was about the act of watching the movie itself. When the old-timers preached against the movie theater, VCRs, DVDs, Netflix, etc., did not exist. You couldn't watch a movie without going to the theatre!

I have come to the place in life where I'm not interested in 99% of the movies that come out or shows on television. Most of them grieve my spirit. Most of them are boring or "jump the shark" from the get-go. But I still went to the theatre to see that Dinesh D'Souza "America" documentary last year.

/end rant!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Walt]

I went to college with Ryan, and I pastor a church about an hour away from him. He didn't see the point in spending the time required to continue arguments on this site.

The HAC forum is always fun and, for the most part, courteous, but some of the other forums on this site aren't worth getting involved in.

As for the post, Ryan said that Jeff Fugate personally called him to talk about it. Ryan said he had a new respect for Bro. Fugate after that conversation because of the way he conducted himself.

I've never heard Fugate preach, but I've followed him on Twitter. He seems like a decent enough guy, but I just don't trust the people he hangs out with (Hamblin, S. Smith, etc.) #oldpaths

I had a similar feeling of surprise when I listened to S Smith preach.  He preached a good, Bible-based message both times in the same conference.  Given the history of the Sword, and the people (Hamblin, et al) with whom he associates, I wasn't expecting that.

 

[BALAAM]

Exactly. This 'illogical reasoning' is the main reason for the rise in the New IFB's.

...not quite. Does it contribute to it? Absolutely. Is it the main reason. Absolutely not. There are several contributing factors, including some that are not quite so altruistic.

Tom, I am sorry to say that I had to look up the definition for that word. You will be pleased to know that I did look it up!

 

[Walt]

Thanks for the info.
I would bet you dollars to donuts that (at least I hope) that Winninger has not preached their since all that stuff blew up at his church.
It bothers me greatly that Fugate would associate at all with the Neals and allow Chester Mulligan to preach, if indeed he preached after he plead guilty.  Did he not do jail time?
Child molestation is not looked to kindly upon in any jurisdiction.
The Chuck Harding info is still conjecture and I would try to get this info nailed down before I gave credence to it.
A friend of mine works with him in that ministry and I don't think he would cotton too well to know that his partner has that kind of baggage.

Totally agree about not giving credence to mere conjecture -- but note that the lying about his background is NOT conjecture - he claimed to be someone relatively high up in the security services that provided security for all kinds of visiting dignitaries.  Truth is that he worked for a third-party company as a "rent-a-cop" on big occasions.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

Oh.  To the original thought, these are the friends of Fugate.

My former pastor used to say, "If I (we) don't get the job done, who will?"

That sounded so spiritual then.

Point?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The illustrations on this thread lead back to my question:
Is the logic of this thinking simply that militant separation and standards trump personal conduct and integrity?

I know that sounds like a ludicrous question, but that is my perception of their reality. But surely that isn't the case. I was hoping a 'true IFB believer' would offer a response. Raider, Tim, Tom? Not just a rehash of what is believed, but the process that allows that conclusion to be reached.
bgwilkinson, while you obviously don't believe that, you have been in the movement that believes and practices such. Can you offer an explanation?

I posted this upstairs, but figured I'd get a better answer down here.
Not trying to be argumentative, just want to know.

 

[Fresh Air]

The illustrations on this thread lead back to my question:
Is the logic of this thinking simply that militant separation and standards trump personal conduct and integrity?

I know that sounds like a ludicrous question, but that is my perception of their reality. But surely that isn't the case. I was hoping a 'true IFB believer' would offer a response. Raider, Tim, Tom? Not just a rehash of what is believed, but the process that allows that conclusion to be reached.
bgwilkinson, while you obviously don't believe that, you have been in the movement that believes and practices such. Can you offer an explanation?

I posted this upstairs, but figured I'd get a better answer down here.
Not trying to be argumentative, just want to know.

I do not have the time for an in-depth response but I will give you two quick thoughts.

1 - a bunch of people don't think Jack Hyles lost his integrity. There are different levels to that. Some think he hung the moon, IOW, that he did nothing wrong ever practically. Others think he made clear errors and big ones but that he was nowhere near guilty of adultery. Ergo, the comparison is not as black and white as some (including you) would make it.

2 - a bunch of people think Jack Hyles' faults/failures were not in his IFB doctrine but in spite of it. Those same people, OTOH, see Falwell's errors as the direct descendant of faulty doctrine. IOW, the group which would rather claim influence by Hyles than Falwell - and I'm one of those obviously - thinks in this sense/context Falwell was unbiblical and Hyles was biblical.

...which means for many men it isn't nearly as much about Hyles as you would think. It is about our doctrine and practice. Now it just so happens that Hyles was the loudest voice for that doctrine and practice but the voice is not the reason we still hold it. The words are.

 

[rsc2a]

It is about our doctrine and practice. Now it just so happens that Hyles was the loudest voice for that doctrine and practice but the voice is not the reason we still hold it. The words are.

Your doctrine is works-righteousness, man worship, prosperity theology, faulty church governance and idolatry?

 

[Fresh Air]

Your doctrine is works-righteousness, man worship, prosperity theology, faulty church governance and idolatry?

I think you left child sacrifice off that list...

:

 

[bgwilkinson]

The illustrations on this thread lead back to my question:
Is the logic of this thinking simply that militant separation and standards trump personal conduct and integrity?

I know that sounds like a ludicrous question, but that is my perception of their reality. But surely that isn't the case. I was hoping a 'true IFB believer' would offer a response. Raider, Tim, Tom? Not just a rehash of what is believed, but the process that allows that conclusion to be reached.
bgwilkinson, while you obviously don't believe that, you have been in the movement that believes and practices such. Can you offer an explanation?

I posted this upstairs, but figured I'd get a better answer down here.
Not trying to be argumentative, just want to know.

This is what I personally witnessed, ergo, when my deacon bus worker friends would invite me to go with them to Rush street in Chicago on Friday nights I knew they would be on their bus routes on Saturday and drive in to church with full buses on Sunday, this was the antidote to adultery and the lasciviousness of Rush street. It was like a get out of jail free card. Soul-winning always covered a multitude of sins with Bro. Hyles.

Two of these men who were close personal associates with Bro. Hyles divorced their wives a few years latter, and resigned as deacons. I found out latter that Bro. Hyles knew all about the Rush St. trips and the adultery all along.

I have always had great personal struggles with the acceptance of sinful living in exchange for production in the bus ministry.

Bro. Hyles used to say soul-winning was everything, that might be your explanation.

He could not point to purity in his family (Dave) or in many of the more famous men of the church, but they sure could produce big results.

The main goal of Bro. Hyles life was to built the biggest (string of curse words spoken by his dad) church in the world. He reminded us constantly.

 

[Binaca Chugger]

For sake of the ministry.

This was the creed that dominated the life of so many.  We willingly sacrificed family, finances and health for sake of the ministry.  I applaud the valiant effort of so many to give so much for the cause of Christ.  I also understand the error of not caring for your own.

With the mindset, when a leader laborer had fallen into sin, the sin must never be acknowledged nor confronted for sake of the ministry.  The ministry took priority.  The fear that the ministry would be lost if people discovered a leader had sinned overcame the Biblical process of discipline in a church.  In short, there was a feeling that the ministry of men must be protected by men.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Yes, Bro. Hyles always thanked us for his ministry at the close of the Sat night meetings.

We always covered for him.

 

[Walt]

For sake of the ministry.

This was the creed that dominated the life of so many.  We willingly sacrificed family, finances and health for sake of the ministry.  I applaud the valiant effort of so many to give so much for the cause of Christ.  I also understand the error of not caring for your own.

With the mindset, when a leader laborer had fallen into sin, the sin must never be acknowledged nor confronted for sake of the ministry.  The ministry took priority.  The fear that the ministry would be lost if people discovered a leader had sinned overcame the Biblical process of discipline in a church.  In short, there was a feeling that the ministry of men must be protected by men.

A good summary -- and all of the above is not Biblical.  There is no Scripture that commands us to overlook sin for "the sake of the ministry" -- but (as Tom Brennan points out), a clear verse COMMANDING us to expose leaders (elders/pastors) who sin.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The illustrations on this thread lead back to my question:
Is the logic of this thinking simply that militant separation and standards trump personal conduct and integrity?

I know that sounds like a ludicrous question, but that is my perception of their reality. But surely that isn't the case. I was hoping a 'true IFB believer' would offer a response. Raider, Tim, Tom? Not just a rehash of what is believed, but the process that allows that conclusion to be reached.
bgwilkinson, while you obviously don't believe that, you have been in the movement that believes and practices such. Can you offer an explanation?

I posted this upstairs, but figured I'd get a better answer down here.
Not trying to be argumentative, just want to know.

I do not have the time for an in-depth response but I will give you two quick thoughts.

1 - a bunch of people don't think Jack Hyles lost his integrity. There are different levels to that. Some think he hung the moon, IOW, that he did nothing wrong ever practically. Others think he made clear errors and big ones but that he was nowhere near guilty of adultery. Ergo, the comparison is not as black and white as some (including you) would make it.

2 - a bunch of people think Jack Hyles' faults/failures were not in his IFB doctrine but in spite of it. Those same people, OTOH, see Falwell's errors as the direct descendant of faulty doctrine. IOW, the group which would rather claim influence by Hyles than Falwell - and I'm one of those obviously - thinks in this sense/context Falwell was unbiblical and Hyles was biblical.

...which means for many men it isn't nearly as much about Hyles as you would think. It is about our doctrine and practice. Now it just so happens that Hyles was the loudest voice for that doctrine and practice but the voice is not the reason we still hold it. The words are.

I appreciate the response, Tom.
I was not limiting my Hyles-Falwell contrast to just thr two men, but their ministries....their legacy's if you will. There is a great difference in the sometimes tawdry tales coming from Hammond, and they span generations.

As to biblical and unbiblical, that isn't as black or white as some (including you) would make it. To say that Falwell was morally, biblically inferior to Dr Hyles is laughable...to some of us at least.

I would say that your response leads me back to the point that a militant stand on standards, 'separation' and as some here added 'soulwinning' does, in practice trump moral and biblical ethics.