The influence of the 'new' IFB's.

[LongGone]

The great Jack Hyles would turn over in his grave if he knew about these millennials. Only one he would like would be the famous Caleb Garraway for sticking to the fundamentals and not conforming to the liberals and CCM music.

Jack Hyles was the "millennial" of his generation as well. He was called out for his "compromise" of starting this new ministry "idea" called the Bus Ministry where he would go out into Chicago and reach out to black kids.  He was called liberal by other pastors including his own church members at the time.

Define what reaching out to black kids means. During the years I was at HAC (75-80) the bus ministry was made up of Hispanic and white kids. As a bus captain I knew I would be counseled if my bus attendance included too many black kids. While it appeared that God was blessing FBCH with numbers there was the issue of racism that lingered in the back of my mind.

 

[Fresh Air]

Define what reaching out to black kids means. During the years I was at HAC (75-80) the bus ministry was made up of Hispanic and white kids. As a bus captain I knew I would be counseled if my bus attendance included too many black kids. While it appeared that God was blessing FBCH with numbers there was the issue of racism that lingered in the back of my mind.

Funny you use that word. I wrote a chapter in Schizophrenic about this. I titled it, 'The Lingering Taint of an Old Racism'. Good word...

 

[Mr. White]

I am a millennial IFB pastor. I believe I have a good understanding of the meaning of those words and I embrace them. However, as I have grown in doctrine and pastoral ministry, I want nothing at all to do with the philosophy and beliefs of the old Pastor's School and Sword of the Lord crowd.  And though my shift has been labeled as liberal by some, I believe I have become more conservative and more fundamental.

I have a higher view of scripture and it's role in preaching. I've ditched the topical nonsense.

I have changed my view of the Holy Spirit and his role in our sanctification. The IFB leaders I knew taught a borderline charismatic view.

I have added substance and doctrine to my music program. We have embraced new and old songs that teach the congregation and ditched both old and new that don't.
We love "Come Thou Fount", we ditched "I'll Fly Away". We love "In Christ Alone", we ditched "I'm gonna get my worship on".

I have a higher view of scripture. I've ditched the extra-biblical nonsense that is KJV onlyism and have embraced a higher view of the foundations of scripture.

I have a higher view of grace and therefore have ditched the legalism of the Pharisees.

I have a higher view of salvation, so I've ditched the false gospel of easy believism.

I could go on and on... It's frustrating to be labeled a liberal or a wishy washy millennial when every position I have changed on is more in line with scriptural teaching. The IFB movement as promoted by HAC was weak and often wrong doctrinally. It promoted a false gospel. Was morally bankrupt. Was reprehensible in its relationship to scripture. Yet, I'm suppose to continue on with some sort of sentimental attachment to the place. Be careful when attacking the young guys, they may have more principles than the old guard.

Sorry, emotional outburst is over.

 

[FSSL]

And though my shift has been labeled as liberal by some, I believe I have become more conservative and more fundamental.

You are just shifting back to what was originally genuine fundamentalism. They shifted away.

When was the last time you heard an IFB preach on the atonement or image of God in man instead of a 1611 version of the Bible or listen to a mystical/ludicrous story of a man weeping on his mom's grave?

Now the question is, "Can/should there be a revival of fundamentalism?" Or, has it been altered too much by Billy Sunday/Hyles/Bob Jones (and others) enough over the past 50+ years that the term just needs to be abandoned and identification as a conservative Christian speaks more clearly?

 

[bruinboy]

I am a millennial IFB pastor. I believe I have a good understanding of the meaning of those words and I embrace them. However, as I have grown in doctrine and pastoral ministry, I want nothing at all to do with the philosophy and beliefs of the old Pastor's School and Sword of the Lord crowd.  And though my shift has been labeled as liberal by some, I believe I have become more conservative and more fundamental.

I have a higher view of scripture and it's role in preaching. I've ditched the topical nonsense.

I have changed my view of the Holy Spirit and his role in our sanctification. The IFB leaders I knew taught a borderline charismatic view.

I have added substance and doctrine to my music program. We have embraced new and old songs that teach the congregation and ditched both old and new that don't.
We love "Come Thou Fount", we ditched "I'll Fly Away". We love "In Christ Alone", we ditched "I'm gonna get my worship on".

I have a higher view of scripture. I've ditched the extra-biblical nonsense that is KJV onlyism and have embraced a higher view of the foundations of scripture.

I have a higher view of grace and therefore have ditched the legalism of the Pharisees.

I have a higher view of salvation, so I've ditched the false gospel of easy believism.

I could go on and on... It's frustrating to be labeled a liberal or a wishy washy millennial when every position I have changed on is more in line with scriptural teaching. The IFB movement as promoted by HAC was weak and often wrong doctrinally. It promoted a false gospel. Was morally bankrupt. Was reprehensible in its relationship to scripture. Yet, I'm suppose to continue on with some sort of sentimental attachment to the place. Be careful when attacking the young guys, they may have more principles than the old guard.

Sorry, emotional outburst is over.

Great post.  The only thing I would consider is to avoid the IFB tag, if you have not already done so.  There is soooooo much baggage attached to that label, a whole fleet of 747's couldn't carry it all. 

 

[bruinboy]

I am sure we can all agree that the IFB is certainly a "movement"

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

The opposite of new IFB..or new anything.
http://www.swordconferences.com/nsc.html

 

[bruinboy]

The opposite of new IFB..or new anything.
http://www.swordconferences.com/nsc.html

Well, well, it starts tomorrow. I am encouraged as I look at the picture of the "crowd".  Like most IFB gatherings, they look to be quite old, with lots of gray hair. And the roster of speakers, quite the list of who?  who?   

 

[BALAAM]

The opposite of new IFB..or new anything.
http://www.swordconferences.com/nsc.html

Taking bets here. How many times during this conference will the word 'old' or phrase 'old paths' be used?

 

[bgwilkinson]

The opposite of new IFB..or new anything.
http://www.swordconferences.com/nsc.html

Looks like they got rid of the fake Doctor this and Doctor that. Maybe there is hope for them.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

And though my shift has been labeled as liberal by some, I believe I have become more conservative and more fundamental.

You are just shifting back to what was originally genuine fundamentalism. They shifted away.

When was the last time you heard an IFB preach on the atonement or image of God in man instead of a 1611 version of the Bible or listen to a mystical/ludicrous story of a man weeping on his mom's grave?

Now the question is, "Can/should there be a revival of fundamentalism?" Or, has it been altered too much by Billy Sunday/Hyles/Bob Jones (and others) enough over the past 50+ years that the term just needs to be abandoned and identification as a conservative Christian speaks more clearly?

It appears to me that there are many factions in IFB-dom now. The hard line old path-ers with tired, old leaders like Bob Gray and the Sword crowd. They seem to live in a time warp and are clueless that anything has or should change...except for their influence and attendance figures.

There is another smaller (and they are all small) group who don't follow the above camp, but have disdain for screens in auditoriums, lack of suits and ties on Pastors, drums and guitars in music and not having independent and fundamental and Baptist in your name and on your sign. To them, adding a screen today surely means dropping a fundamental doctrine in the future.

The third group includes those I linked to in the OP. They reject the personalities in the first group and embrace the hated methods of the second group. And both of the other 2 groups loudly and brashly embrace fundamental and independent. If you were them, wouldn't you be ambivalent about the terms?

 

[FSSL]

If one seeks to influence the IFBs, then they need to identify as IFBs. Otherwise, they are just outsiders who don't know it yet.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

If one seeks to influence the IFBs, then they need to identify as IFBs. Otherwise, they are just outsiders who don't know it yet.

I'm not sure they seek to redefine or lead an IFB movement. I've never read they intended such. They have simply rejected the tenets of the other 2 groups and have gone their own way.

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

The great Jack Hyles would turn over in his grave if he knew about these millennials. Only one he would like would be the famous Caleb Garraway for sticking to the fundamentals and not conforming to the liberals and CCM music.

Jack Hyles was the "millennial" of his generation as well. He was called out for his "compromise" of starting this new ministry "idea" called the Bus Ministry where he would go out into Chicago and reach out to black kids.  He was called liberal by other pastors including his own church members at the time.

Define what reaching out to black kids means. During the years I was at HAC (75-80) the bus ministry was made up of Hispanic and white kids. As a bus captain I knew I would be counseled if my bus attendance included too many black kids. While it appeared that God was blessing FBCH with numbers there was the issue of racism that lingered in the back of my mind.

When he first introduced the idea of a "transportation" ministry to the church members of FBCH, it sounded like a great idea until the Hispanic and black kids came. Obviously those church members eventually left the church when Hyles wouldn't budge from his "new idea".

There will always be "new ideas" from younger preachers, the older ones have to accept it and continue to fellowship with these younger pastors who share the same doctrinal beliefs yet different preferences in certain practical matters of the ministry.

 

[Walt]

I am a millennial IFB pastor. I believe I have a good understanding of the meaning of those words and I embrace them. However, as I have grown in doctrine and pastoral ministry, I want nothing at all to do with the philosophy and beliefs of the old Pastor's School and Sword of the Lord crowd.  And though my shift has been labeled as liberal by some, I believe I have become more conservative and more fundamental.

Welcome; I enjoyed reading your post.

What do you mean by "the old Pastor's School" -- is that a code phrase meaning "Jack Hyles"?  He had the famous "Pastor's School".  I am intrigued by the "nothing at all to do with the philosophy and beliefs" - I suspect some exaggeration.  I am no fan of Jack Hyles at all (you can find my other posts), but certainly he and FBCH had some laudable beliefs.  What about their desire to reach the military with the gospel? What about their dedication to the bus route?  These are commendable, even if certain philosophies are wrong.

And what about the Sword of the Lord? Yes, there are things about them that I don't like and don't agree with, but there have been numerous messages they printed that were a blessing to me. Their core beliefs seem to be pretty solid.

I have a higher view of scripture and it's role in preaching. I've ditched the topical nonsense.

I take exception to this - are you saying that all topical preaching is "nonsense"?  I've heard that every message in the New Testament is a topical message.  Again, there have been abuses under the guise of topical preaching, but that doesn't mean topical preaching is totally worthless. There are blessings by studying topics in the Scriptures.

I have changed my view of the Holy Spirit and his role in our sanctification. The IFB leaders I knew taught a borderline charismatic view.

Intriguing. I have heard some IFB preachers teach things that sounded a bit charismatic.

I have added substance and doctrine to my music program. We have embraced new and old songs that teach the congregation and ditched both old and new that don't.
We love "Come Thou Fount", we ditched "I'll Fly Away". We love "In Christ Alone", we ditched "I'm gonna get my worship on".

I have no problems with making sure that songs are Scriptural.  As per "I'll Fly Away" - it does seem a bit Southern Gospel-ish -- meaning that the song is a bit shallow.  There are two versions of "In Christ Alone" - I am suspicious of songs by CCM artists -- their associations give me concern.  Many of them cite Rock & Roll groups as their heroes or as their inspiration, and that is unsavory.

I have a higher view of scripture. I've ditched the extra-biblical nonsense that is KJV onlyism and have embraced a higher view of the foundations of scripture.

This makes me suspicious - the above is kind of what the "higher critics" said, who rejected much of Scripture; treated the Bible as any old book instead of God's word.  There is certainly some nonsense among those who support the KJV - those who claim that it is inspired, or who reject lexicons and commentaries.  But I reject the entire stream of translations made from the "critical text" stream.

I have a higher view of grace and therefore have ditched the legalism of the Pharisees.

Is it legalism to teach people to obey the Bible? Yes, there has been preaching on preferences (no red shirts, no white suits, against certain kinds of shoes, etc), but we are commanded in Scripture to live soberly, godly, and righteously.

I have a higher view of salvation, so I've ditched the false gospel of easy believism.

In order to get men's approval, there has been far too many example of getting someone to say a prayer so that we can claim "I led 50 people to Christ today", but of those 50, none ever showed any interest in Jesus, or in the Scriptures, or in His church. 

I could go on and on... It's frustrating to be labeled a liberal or a wishy washy millennial when every position I have changed on is more in line with scriptural teaching. The IFB movement as promoted by HAC was weak and often wrong doctrinally. It promoted a false gospel. Was morally bankrupt. Was reprehensible in its relationship to scripture. Yet, I'm suppose to continue on with some sort of sentimental attachment to the place. Be careful when attacking the young guys, they may have more principles than the old guard.

Sorry, emotional outburst is over.

It was fun reading...

 

[FSSL]

I'm not sure they seek to redefine or lead an IFB movement. I've never read they intended such. They have simply rejected the tenets of the other 2 groups and have gone their own way.

Ahhh.... now I understand. I thought, by your title, that was the case. 

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I'm not sure they seek to redefine or lead an IFB movement. I've never read they intended such. They have simply rejected the tenets of the other 2 groups and have gone their own way.

Ahhh.... now I understand. I thought, by your title, that was the case. 

Sorry.
They self identify as IFB, but aren't actively seeking to redefine the terms. I know what (little) I know from my acquaintance with one of the men who helps organize the idea days.

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

I'm not sure they seek to redefine or lead an IFB movement. I've never read they intended such. They have simply rejected the tenets of the other 2 groups and have gone their own way.

Ahhh.... now I understand. I thought, by your title, that was the case. 

Sorry.
They self identify as IFB, but aren't actively seeking to redefine the terms. I know what (little) I know from my acquaintance with one of the men who helps organize the idea days.

So they're IFB? Meaning they are independent from one another, so why are we concerned? It's their choice.

 

[Walt]

I'm not sure they seek to redefine or lead an IFB movement. I've never read they intended such. They have simply rejected the tenets of the other 2 groups and have gone their own way.

Ahhh.... now I understand. I thought, by your title, that was the case. 

Sorry.
They self identify as IFB, but aren't actively seeking to redefine the terms. I know what (little) I know from my acquaintance with one of the men who helps organize the idea days.

So they're IFB? Meaning they are independent from one another, so why are we concerned? It's their choice.

Independent doesn't mean that we don't care if they are right or wrong; it means that we acknowledge that we don't have the authority to make them act as we wish.

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

I'm not sure they seek to redefine or lead an IFB movement. I've never read they intended such. They have simply rejected the tenets of the other 2 groups and have gone their own way.

Ahhh.... now I understand. I thought, by your title, that was the case. 

Sorry.
They self identify as IFB, but aren't actively seeking to redefine the terms. I know what (little) I know from my acquaintance with one of the men who helps organize the idea days.

So they're IFB? Meaning they are independent from one another, so why are we concerned? It's their choice.

Independent doesn't mean that we don't care if they are right or wrong; it means that we acknowledge that we don't have the authority to make them act as we wish.

but the problem is this isnt a right or wrong issue, its preference