Tag: definition

“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?

What Makes a Church a Cult?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 12 Comments

I was reading through a detailed article in Chicago Magazine (starts on pt. 78) on Jack Schaap’s fall and the history and legacy of First Baptist Church of Hammond, IN (HT: Sharper Iron Filings; more on Schaap here), and I came across an excellent description of what makes a church a cult. I added the numbers to the quote below to list out the four marks of a cult that were mentioned.

What makes a church a cult? I asked Rick Ross, whose nonprofit institute maintains an online archive of data on cults and controversial movements. (He says he is not familiar with the details of First Baptist.) Ross points to a landmark 1981 Harvard study on cult formation, which suggests that all cults, destructive or not, share three elements: [1] an absolute authoritarian leader who defines the group; [2] a “thought program” that includes “control of the environment, control of information, and people subordinating themselves and their feelings to the demands of the leader”; and [3] a lack of accountability for the head of the group. Another common characteristic of cults, Ross says, is that [4] they use shame and some sort of exploitation–financial, spiritual, or sexual–to exercise control. Members of a Bible-based group for example are made to believe that “it’s a sin of pride for you to think for yourself,” he says. “It’s your ego or a demon or Satan’s influence that causes you to doubt the edicts of the leadership.” [bold emphasis added]

Most people I know who have come out of a strict fundamentalist background refere to their former church as cultic. The points above seem to validate this concern. The group I was connected with would qualify as cultic according to this definition.

I shared this quote at Sharper Iron, where they are discussing this article as a whole. I wanted to share it here too, for my audience. What do you think? Are we off base to point to a fundamentalist church and say it is cultic?

John Piper’s Thoughts on Gay Marriage and Pastoral Ministry

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Recently, John Piper preached the following sermon: Let Marriage Be Held in Honor” — Thinking Biblically About So-Called Same-Sex Marriage. The Minneapolis Star-Tribune picked up on his sermon and claimed he was “opting out” of the marriage fight, referring to the proposed marriage amendment to the MN state constitution that is on the ballot this Fall (which defines marriage as between one man and one woman). Piper clarified his remarks, explaining he wasn’t opting out but rather helping his congregation think through the matter biblically. Still the fact remains that Piper has held back from overtly supporting the amendment, preferring not to politicize the church or give explicit weight to one legislative approach to dealing with homosexuality.

Here are some excerpts from that sermon which provide possible reasons for his coming up short of a full endorsement of the marriage amendment.

How should Christian citizens decide which of their views they should seek to put into law? Which moral convictions should Christians seek to pass as legal requirements? Christians believe it is immoral to covet and to steal. But we seek to pass laws against stealing, not against coveting. One of the principles at work here seems to be: the line connecting coveting with damage to the public good is not clear enough. No doubt there is such a connection. God can see it and the public good would, we believe, be greatly enhanced if covetousness were overcome. But finite humans can’t see it clearly enough to regulate coveting with laws and penalties. This is why we have to leave hundreds of immoral acts for Jesus to sort out when he comes.

Laws exist to preserve and enhance the public good. Which means that all laws are based on some conception of what is good for us. Which means that all legislation and all voting is a moral activity. It is based on choices about what is good for the public. And those choices are always informed by a world view. And in that worldview — whether conscious or not — there are views of ultimate reality that determine what a person thinks the public good is.

Which means that all legislation is the legislation of morality. Someone’s view of what is good — what is moral — wins the minds of the majority and carries the day. The question is: Which actions hurt the common good or enhance the common good so much that the one should be prohibited by law and the other should be required by law?

…

8. Don’t press the organization of the church or her pastors into political activism. Pray that the church and her ministers would feed the flock of God with the word of God centered on the gospel of Christ crucified and risen. Expect from your shepherds not that they would rally you behind political candidates or legislative initiatives, but they would point you over and over again to God and to his word, and to the cross.

Please try to understand this: When I warn against the politicizing of the church, I do so not to diminish her power but to increase it. The impact of the church for the glory of Christ and the good of the world does not increase when she shifts her priorities from the worship of God and the winning of souls and the nurturing of faith and raising up of new generations of disciples.

If the whole counsel of God is preached with power week in and week out, Christians who are citizens of heaven and citizens of this democratic order will be energized as they ought to speak and act for the common good.

[quoted from the online transcript of Piper’s sermon dated June 16/17, 2012]

The Desiring God blog later posted a fuller transcript of Piper’s words surrounding point 8 from his sermon. Piper also went on to give a series of brief blog posts addressing the topic of homosexuality which I found very helpful. I provide links to these articles below.

I appreciate Piper’s resolve to not allow the church to become too politicized. We need to stand for God’s truth, but in matters of social policy and interacting with the fallen world in which we live, there are valid points to be made for competing visions of legislative strategy. I support marriage as being defined as between one man and one woman. But I also recognize the political reality of the fallen world we live in. There are legal and economic benefits of marriage that could be bestowed on civil unions, and if they want to call that “marriage”, why should I be surprised? Will legislating a definition of marriage fix the problem of the heart? Will it not only add fuel to the fire when it comes to the continuing the fight for “true equality” from our homosexual neighbors? Will it really solve anything?

How Do You Define Fundamentalism?

~ Bob Hayton ~ 16 Comments

So how do you define Fundamentalism?

Which of the following definitions seems correct to you? Which one raises your eyebrows?

1) Fundamentalism is a movement of likeminded people and churches who “still cling to the great fundamentals and who mean to do battle royal” against theological liberalism. (quote from Curtis Lee Laws in 1920)

2) Fundamentalism is strict adherence to specific, fundamental, theological doctrines typically in reaction against Modernist theology.

3) The word fundamental means, one who holds to the original faith and practice of a movement…. A fundamental Baptist church is a church whose faith and practice goes back to 31 A.D. to Jesus. You can be a fundamental Methodist and go back to Wesley. You can be a fundamental Presbyterian and go back to Calvin or Zwingli. You can be a fundamental Lutheran and go back to Luther. You can be a fundamental Catholic and go back to Constantine, but you cannot be a real Bible fundamentalist unless you go back to Jesus. (quote from Jack Hyles taken from his book The Church)

4) Fundamentalism is “a combination of psuedo-religious legalism with endless man-made rules given Ten Commandment-status, religious hypocrisy, extreme sectarianism, religious pride, and pervasive intellectual, ecclesiastic, ethical corruption and dishonesty all ruled over by a few men who embodied the worst qualities of the original Pharisees and whose teachings and actions cannot be questioned.” (quote from this anti-fundamentalist blog)

The fundamentalism I identify with is #1 or #2 above. I abhor the #4 type. In my experience, however, the #4 type is most pervasive and most common. The #3 mentality is also common among fundamental Baptists. They have an exclusive hold on the truth, or so they think. Check out this website for another example of this thinking. I am suspicious of this #3 mentality, but many good people are caught up in that kind of thinking.

Alright, what about you? What is your take on these four definitions of fundamentalism? Do you have a better definition? Join the discussion below.

The Legalist “Not Me” Dance

~ Bob Hayton ~ 3 Comments

Anytime anybody talks about legalism, everybody, and I do mean everybody, nods their head and points at someone else. We find ways to trick ourselves into thinking that the dangers of legalism only apply to all out Roman Catholic monks, or someone else in some other place than my church.

I came across a great post that covers this issue, as well as applying it to conservative evangelism in a painfully, too-close-to-home way. I’ll post an excerpt here, but encourage you to go on over and read Our Legalistic Definition of Legalism at The Quiet Protest. [HT: The Aquila Report]

In short, legalism is robbing people of the joy of relationship with God by the imposing of rules. Rules that take Scripture’s grand principles and convert them into minute expectations. Rules that convince me that I am doing a better job at living this Christian life than you are. Rules that show me how good I am, and, incidentally, how bad you are. Legalists did not so much add to Scripture whole new lists of requirements as they did take the spare Law of God and codify it into a bazillion provisos, caveats, whereases and heretofores. We can grant that they did it with the best of intentions –they were serious about obedience to God. They were so serious they couldn’t keep their own rules, so they made loopholes to ease the burden of them.

Before long, the rules became stuff that, if I do, makes me one of the “in,” and you, if you don’t, one of the “out.”

Conservative evangelicalism of the Reformed type seems rife with these sorts of well-intentioned unwritten rules….

Legalism kills joy. Legalism kills community. Legalism is excessively concerned with the business of other people. God, show us our lingering legalisms, and help us to put it to death.