20/20 Controversy: the non Baptist-Only discussion

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Eric B, May 7, 2011.

  1. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    Since the issue is still going on with a new thread, but in the Baptist only section, and the argument goes back and forth between whether the entire IFB movement should be painted or not, I had some comments about the whole thing, from an outsider's perspective.

    Growing up in an agnostic family, fundamentalism as a whole appeared to be just a hostile group that condemned the world, mostly for evolution and other wrong beliefs regarding God, as well as the sex sins becoming more open in society (yet they were completely silent on stuff like racism, which was strange, and instead favored political views that seemed to go along with race and class division).

    So coming of age in the 80's, the sense I got was "WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE"? These people telling me and everyone else how to live, mind you!

    They appeal to the prophets and apostles of scripture who were commanded to "reprove, rebuke, exhort", etc. But the big difference was that those leaders were apart of the communities they were called to correct.

    So it seems as fundamentalism, like everything else, became more moderate as time went on, a split developed and widened between "new evangelicalism" and "old-line fundamentalism", (or "separationists") which has become pretty much embodied in the IFB movement.

    The old-liners were the ones still condemning rock music and psychology, as others accepted these things more. (I even remember some book condemning every single kids show on TV. The Smurfs, for instance were said to be demons!) And then, the growing KJVO rally. All under the banner of following "the old paths", that everyone else, both in the world, and now even in the Church, were being condemned for abandoning the faith or at least "compromising".

    So even as I myself finally became a Christian, the question that still loomed was "who are these people?"

    I finally got some experience with them through RevKev (the guy who brought me to the BB), and he was nice and sensible, though I did get to attend the classes of an associated church that taught the music and psychology criticisms, and get the full sense of their philosophy. This prompted me to write what became my web articles on those subjects.

    Pretty soon, I joined the BB, and immediately jumped into the ring with Aaron and the others that used to be in this section, over the music issue. (Wow, 10 years this month as we speak!)

    My observation is that IFB-types have in fact made themselves big targets.
    People cite stuff like Satanic attack against believers, Ps. 2:2, etc. but scripture says to give him no occasion (1Tim. 5:14)

    For one thing, there seems to be a possible misunderstanding of regeneration and sanctification that promotes a lot of this hardness towards "sinners" and even other Christians (e.g. "compromisers") through an overestimation of one's own achivements in this "transformation". (Whether it's by "free will choice" or attributed to God through "unconditional election").
    This even comes out in the arguments against psychology. It becomes the whole premise of why it is always an "unbiblical addition" to scripture.

    It's a formulaic picture of "growth" that assumes all your problems and sins go away if you just follow the proper steps or disciplines (prayer, Bible reading, the work of the Gospel, "think about others and not yourself", etc. I see, one IFB defender even said, essentially, if you've been abused "just pray, and the pain will eventually go away").
    Even particular music rhythms were said to cause sin or "feed the flesh" (evidenced by them being enjoyable enough to cause one to tap one's foot), so to really stay pure, those must be avoided.

    But the truth is, no one's sin nature has been wiped away like that. What's wiped away is the condemnation, and hopefully, the guilt.
    But what happens, is we set up extremely high ideals with this, and impose them on others we see falling short, and then try to live up to them ourselves, by putting on this air of perfection. So it ends up looking like we're leaning up against God's throne shouting to everyone else, "OK, all you sinners get in line with us"!

    So people put themselves out there as these super Christians whose lives have been totally "changed" by God, and it's so "simple"; it 'worked' for us, so there's no excuse for anyone else, but at the same time, it's so "hard" ("the offense of the Cross", etc) it also makes them look good, and likely boosts the ego as well.

    All of man is tinged with the guilt of sin, so, the basic inclination is to take down anyone who attempts to rise from among the ranks of humanity and claim to be better. You can complain of "persecution", or whatever, but that's what's going to happen.

    Jimmy Swaggart is one who with a strong moralistic message, and had preached many of the same things on music and psychology, in addition to emphasizing "the baptism/filling of the Spirit", yet no one could see what was going on in his life until it erupted to the surface. So then what did all those lofty ideals he preached really mean, then? After all that, he proved to be still a sinful human just like everyone else.
    Of course, people like him IFB's can conveniently distance themselves from for being charismatic (whom they seem to totally reject), and/or new evangelical.

    He too, like every other religious leader caught in sin blamed the media for its "attacks". What do we really expect from a world we have condemned so hard for its sexual sins? "Oh, well that's fine. It's OK when he does it, but wrong for us". No; they're going to take it as the ultimate proof that we're just human like they are, and in their minds, since Hell has been so connected to bad deeds, if they go, so should we; if we manage to escape it, so should they. (Or, that the whole thing is not real at all).
    People are complaining that the IFB's are being portrayed as a "cult". But we freely call some other groups cults, but the world does not recognize any difference between them. They do not know about the doctrinal nuances that lead us to reject the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Mormons, and even to some extent, the Catholics (My father used to refer to the Pope when I witnessed to him, as if I followed him or something). So IFB's, SBC, Westboro, Pat Robertson, and charismatics are seen as part of this broad category called "fundamentalists". And they tend to judge all of them hard, because they feel they have been judged by them.
    when I became Christian, I quickly learned all the distinctions, but still, was very put off by the more conservative, who seemed the most serious with the bible, but just pushed things into unbiblical proportions, but refused to realize it, because their lives are changed, and they're just right. It became what the Reconstructionists call "presuppositionalism".

    So that left me wondering, with the IFB's I was around, the pastors with their lofty teachings on doctrine and holiness, the submissive looking wives with the long a-line dresses, etc. plus the respected leaders in the movement, such as David Cloud, Biblical Discernment Ministries, the Sword of the Lord people, Chick and his associates, and the BJU circle.

    What were these people really like? They had not had any kind of real scandal —yet. The closest thing was the division caused by Ruckman and his followers. But would they ever have sex scandals as had ripped through the televangelists, Catholic priests and others?
    They could say anything from behind a pulpit, or a radio, TV, or tape microphone, where you could not see their day to day living. And it's true that their families did look like they were so pressed into submission that they would never dare go against the father/husband.
    With that air these people put on, I mean, it's sometimes hard to believe they go to the bathroom or perform "marital duties" and other such mundane aspects of living!

    But now, something has finally entered the public eye, though it's not anyone I had ever heard of before.

    Overall, the ones I was around did seem like fairly nice people. And they were human like everyone else. They were not super Christians, and a few even fell into different sins. (Even despite the "flesh"-denying melody centered traditional music).

    So I think the movement needs to take a really hard look at itself, and perhaps turn the focus from what everyone else is doing wrong for a bit, and just admit that they are sinners saved by grace. Not just recite that as a doctrinal protocol, but really grasp it. I may have lashed out at the movement my time here, but this is really what my concern is.

    Much of what people practice as "denying sinful urges" or "crucifying the flesh", is more accurately just suppressing it. Again; just "pray"; do this, this, that, the other, and it will go away. If it doesn't, then "by faith" you believe you've overcome it. With some things, you just deny it's sin. (Hence, acting like sin first entered America in the 1960's and ignoring everything else but sexual morality and religious belief or atheism). Especially if any worldling or worldly contemporary Christians DARES to accuse you or your movement of any sin. Or it creeps up, and you get caught in the passion of the moment.
    So to us too, it becomes a matter of Prov.28:13.
     
  2. Dr. Walter

    Dr. Walter
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2010
    Messages:
    5,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    All regenerated Christians are still sinners saved by grace. Their success and failures do not determine the truth or untruthfulness of their doctrine. The Bible determines the truth of doctrine.

    Failures in those who teach truth is not a reflection upon the truth but rather confirms the truth of indwelling sin in the best of men.

    However, moral failures among those who teach pivotal false doctrines confirms their doctrinal error.
     
  3. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    True, but what often happens is that they then and only then (in failings) admit their sinfulness (forgot to add that), and they often use the term "just a human" more than "sin" (which is exactly what the world does), and sometimes the doctrine is mixed up in it, as the misconstrued "sanctification" concept I mentioned, where they in practice suppress sin (often with extrabiblical measures such as "avoiding rhythmic music", etc. which actually misplaces sin), and think that they have really gotten rid of it. (This in society, as well as in the individual, hence the claim that more hellfire preaching, more outward religiosity and different politics "preserved" godliness in society in the past).

    So then the failings are completely dissociated from the doctrine, which is never questioned as to whether it's truth. And then the same people point to the sins of others to "prove" that what they criticize about them is the cause (confirmation bias; "that music", "those modern versions", political views, etc).
     
  4. dcorbett

    dcorbett
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,411
    Likes Received:
    1
    you said: So I think the movement needs to take a really hard look at itself, and perhaps turn the focus from what everyone else is doing wrong for a bit, and just admit that they are sinners saved by grace. Not just recite that as a doctrinal protocol, but really grasp it. I may have lashed out at the movement my time here, but this is really what my concern is.

    I am IFB, and I don't know of any IFBs that have ever declared themselves to be anything but a sinner saved by grace! I don't care to look at what you are doing wrong, I have my own life to keep track of, I cannot judge you, God will do that.

    First off , we are not a movement. We are autonomous churches, no central convention of committee tells any IFB church what to do. The members vote on the by-laws and also on filling the pastorate. We pray over vote on each missionary we support too, no one tells us which ones to support. Each IFB church supports different missionaries, there is no central location where we send our monies. I personally know a lot of the missionaries that we support. I never met ANY of the missionaries that the SBC I grew up in supported, because the money all went to Nashville, and we didn't know who got it.

    We follow the Baptist Distinctives for doctrine. Everything else is preference, in other words, what you feel convicted to do as you learn and grow in the scripture. Some female members of our church wear pants, some wear dresses, some members even smoke, most don't, some listen to contemporary Christian music, some don't. There are many other "some do, and some don't" - These are personal growth and preference matters.

    We do expect moral behavior, honesty, charity, and a constant aim at a closer Christian walk. Is that wrong? I don't think so, all is biblical according to what I have read and studied. Be ye seperate fromn the world.

    Please don't judge all IFB churches on what a small handful have done. If we are saved, we are all sinners saved by grace and we all come to the cross the same way.
     
  5. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    OK, you're laying out the ideal, but the problem that is being addressed is what is done in practice, and of course, not by every single person, but by those who have come forth the most to represent the movement. I mentioned in there several ministries, leaders and institutions, which have been the most outspoken, and they had been waging a constant battering against "new evangelicalism", over music, translations, psychology and separation.
    (The latter I would say is the most legitimate of those issues. I didn't even hear anything on smoking or women wearing pants. The latter, I will grant that they have softened down on, or dropped, at least in private, though in practice, in public, it still looks like it's in effect. The former I guess goes without saying, based on 1 Cor.3:16,17, and I've always agreed with that anyway).
    You may not care to look at what others are doing wrong, but then isn't it the men who are said to be called out to be God's preachers and teachers to the world and the Church? They often cite Paul's instructions to Timothy. So you might not do it, but many men have taken that upon themselves, and spend most of their time doing it.

    The people I have seen do not hold these things as "preference". It's the new-evangelicals that will always counter that it is preference, and the old-liners will condemn that as "relativitivism" in disobedience to "clear teaching of scripture". You can see this in some of the old music debates here! If you say you don't feel convicted about it, then they claim your conscience is "seared with a hot iron".
    So those issues then virtually become apart of the "Baptist distinctives", and thus defined as a mandatory part of "moral behavior, a constant aim at a closer Christian walk, etc".
    And it is from there that "sinners saved by grace" is something that can be subtly denied, when we start questioning people's conscience, based on our own "changed life", which some do. (i.e. people see nothing wrong with the music, or they use psychological therapy because their lives have not been "changed". They're still in their "old life", or
    "flesh", which is the word we see tossed around to death in those debates).

    And it is a "movement". They themselves have separated themselves out of the rest of evangelicalism based on those positions, and they hold up both "fundamentalism" and "new evangelicalism" as two distinct entities.
    It's what we call an informal movement, where a central convention or committee is "formal". That's great; but to everyone else, a religious group is a religious group, however it is organized.
    Then, you and others even become defensive for the sake of the whole group. This shows there is some sort of corporate entity (not "corporate" in the legal sense), but yes, we do realize you and everyone else in it are individuals, who are not guilty of everything everyone else has done in the movement. (Wish people would grant movements like CCM the same grace). So the message s for "whomever the shoe fits".

    The people I mentioned might technically be "a few", but they do seem to represent the IFB in general. They are the ones who are the most vocal, and most of you, while perhaps not agreeing with them in everything, still look up to them and cite them as respectable, biblical leaders.

    So while it might not be a formal body telling everyone what to believe; it is still custom and traditions, including the interpretations of scripture. This comes out in the music issue. It might not be a committee defining "godly music"; it's based on classical "Christian" culture versus what was seen as "barbaric" and "sensual". Then, scriptures teaching godliness and condemning sensuality are taken to "prove" this doctrine, and it's "biblical" rather than an organization's teaching. But an organization was not needed; it's just something that more people used to believe; that others have changed on, and some groups and congregations choose to hold onto.

    And yes, different churches, as autonomous bodies, can change, but eventually, if they cross a certain line in allowing too much stuff, they will be lumped in with the "new-evangelical apostasy" by the others. (That's the "check and balance" that fills in for an organization).
     
  6. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Have you ever heard the saying "one rotten apple spoils the whole bushel"?

    There's truth in that. Whether or not individual churches like it, the world outside seeks to group and organize like with like. And those few rotten apples taint the whole group. (and sometimes they intend to do it, remember Spamderson?)

    What are you doing, as a church, to change the rep given in the report? Did you invite the reporter to your church and tell her why you do things differently even though you bear a smiliar name as the church in the report?

    You say: dont paint with such a broad brush, but you aren't giving us anything to distinguish you from those other awful churches.

    OR have to sought to merely distance yourself from the problem by doubting the subject of the report?
     
  7. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    I guess all of "fundamentalists" are just like Harold Camping. :rolleyes:
     
  8. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    So President Obama is an American. He supports abortion rights, supports h0m0s3xual unions, and want Israel to revert to her pre-67 borders.

    One bad apple spoils the whole bushel.

    President Obama is typical of all Americans.
     
  9. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, considering how many voted for the man I'm guessing the world outside our borders believes he is.

    And Camping most certainly has brought scorn on all of us.

    It doesn't seem to matter what the facts are, what matters is how we are perceived. We need to guard our reputations closely and if that means speaking out against such foolishness as Camping promotes we better be doing so, or maybe we deserve to be painted with that broad brush.
     
  10. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I don't know how much more we can do in that regard. Camping was universally condemned. The Westboro crowd is universally condemned. My only problem with that is that it gives crazies like them and Anderson more exposure and credit than they are do.

    People who know us know our lives. My friends here know I pastor an independent Baptist church. They have never associated me with that kind of nonsense.

    Despite the widespread abuse in the Catholic Church here people realise that the vast majority of priests are decent, caring people. The same is true in the 20/20 story. This wickedness happens and should be dealt with. We must never close ranks with any kind of sin in defence of our 'movement.' Error is to be exposed no matter who practices or preaches it.

    I have lost support from several of these extremists churches. I consider myself IFB, but am not always recognised as such by these churches.
     
  11. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    And I see that as a problem in and of itself. The world seems to have to have little way to distinguish the "extremist" IFBs from the ones who are truely doing God's work. (on a national level. On the local level I think individual churches do fine)

    I don't know the solution. It'll take prayer, thought and thorough discussion on the part of the IFB who don't want to be colored by stories such as the one in the OP. The RC is still dealing with perception problems and probably will for years to come. I'm betting IFB's can figure it out a lot quicker!
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    I can usually tell from the grammar in a letter whether I am dealing with an extremist church or not :).
     
  13. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    I see that the issue always seems to get back to those on the IFB side being a bit defensive of being painted with a broad brush with what a few have done. Those on the other side want more to be done, or at least more acknowledgement of the problem.
    But I think there is more underneath all of it than just this that is trying to be said. That was the point I was trying to bring out.

    It's true that you can't judge a whole group by what some do, and it's also true that "one rotten apple spoils the whole bushel" at least in the public's mind. It's funny, because it's these IFB types that are always talking about "appearance of evil" (when it comes to stuff like music styles and "associations"). Yet now it's ironic that they're on the hot seat and decrying guilt by association.

    So I have to think, what is it that we want from them? I imagine they wouldn't coddle these people caught in the allegations, because after all, it does look bad, and they have always taken such strong stance against immorality.

    But I guess it's that people like Gina, menagerie and abcgrad and others are testifying it is a big problem that is just not really in the open; and many try to act like it's not there, or it's only one isolated event. That's when we get the "you haven't been in every single IFB Church" defense.

    I guess the point, which would connect to my concern with IFB's, is in recognizing that as a group, they are still human, and the principle Paul teaches in Romans 7, that trying to run things by Law does not eradicate sin. And many of their rules aren't even from God's Law at that.
    The ultimate point behind this is that such a rule-focused system (whether from God's Law or not) fosters abuses. We see it clearly in so many other religions, and also political systems (totalitarianism, etc).

    You give power to a few, hold the people under all sorts of rules, making stuff like a rhythm the determinant of "flesh vs spirit", or think strict dress codes will help rein in sin, yet all of this is surface behavior and does not get to the root of sin. So people can do all that, and their hearts still full of sin. Yet on the outside, it looks like it's under control. (This also figures in the whole political "all was godly in US history until the 60's" debate).

    So then, you have to maintain this image, so any abuses like this have to be downplayed and isolated. "It's just that one person over there. It's not a problem in our mindset, or methods of dealing with sin. It's everyone else who has apostatized, though." This is what I see being denied.

    So they (such as those well known figures I mentioned who basically represent the movement), put on this image of holy, "changed lives", but then like every other law-focused religion, there is still sin suppressed into the background.

    They can easily condemn the Catholic Church, cults and "mainline" churches these types of abuse have been widely reported in for some time. Yet, now, the same thing is being reported among their ranks. Now, they suddenly identify with all these other groups (in a way), in that this "happens everywhere" as some have said in the other threads.

    My criticism of them has based on their persistent denunciations of new-evangelicalism. If they're going to engage in that, then they have to be able to stand scrutiny as well, but they won't. Or if they want all this grace, then they have to tone down the rhetoric on others, and the ideology behind it. Again, when you do that, others will naturally hold you up to it.
     
  14. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now that is funny Roger! But I understand what you mean.

    Eric, I agree with you about the rule thing, but it seems to be human nature to want "rules" to live by, even when we treat more like "loose guidelines". When we discuss a problem what do we do? We set up new rules!

    We need to be wiser in which rules we decide to live by and consider fully the impact they might have on others.
     
  15. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Style of writing too. Have you ever read any of Ruckman's or Riplinger's books?
     
  16. menageriekeeper

    menageriekeeper
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2004
    Messages:
    7,152
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, usually the description is enough to scare me off!
     
  17. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    There's Terry Watkins as well (whose stuff is online).
     
  18. dcorbett

    dcorbett
    Expand Collapse
    Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2003
    Messages:
    3,411
    Likes Received:
    1
    <<They can easily condemn the Catholic Church, cults and "mainline" churches these types of abuse have been widely reported in for some time. Yet, now, the same thing is being reported among their ranks. Now, they suddenly identify with all these other groups (in a way), in that this "happens everywhere" as some have said in the other threads.>>>

    Please hear me. I do not now and have never comdemned the whole catholic church for what a handful of priests have done. They are individual people. I condemn the catholic church for teaching the wrong message, not the true Gospel, and allowing millions to go to hell when they die.


    <<My criticism of them has based on their persistent denunciations of new-evangelicalism. If they're going to engage in that, then they have to be able to stand scrutiny as well, but they won't. Or if they want all this grace, then they have to tone down the rhetoric on others, and the ideology behind it. Again, when you do that, others will naturally hold you up to it. >>

    Jesus Christ is the same yesteday, today, and tomorrow. The God of the Bible has spelled out his method of judgement on mankind. This is why we need a Savior. You don't just "get" a savior when you are born, you must come to the realization that you are a sinner bound for God's eternal judgement if you don't repent and seek the Savior. "God loves you and has wonderful plans for you" doesn't convict hearts. As long as churches preach that message and don't spell out the Plan of Salvation, more and more people are going to headed for hell.

    Remember, the devils believe also. Repentance and Faith are the keys. If a pulpit doesn't preach this, then they are ineffective and useless.
     
  19. Eric B

    Eric B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2001
    Messages:
    4,806
    Likes Received:
    2
    Well, I wasn't exactly saying that you would condemn the Catholic Church (or the others) for what the priests have done. Yes, you recognize their wrong message, and I'm sure that when the issues with the priests come up, that's just taken as 'par for the course', because of their false Christianity. I don't even see a sense of shock; after all, that's just the Great Harlot Church, and lives aren't really "changed" there, so what do you expect. (And I've felt this way at times too).

    My whole point here was that IFB's and other strict conservative types denounce others both on doctrine and morality, and their moral uprightness is supposed to be the ultimate proof that their lives are the ones really "changed" by God, but a lot of it is conformity to a set of human rules, which is what those other groups do, and the end result is the same: a façade of holiness, yet cracks eventually show, as people follow the rules, and think their "flesh" is under control, but it's really not.
    So one set of people "fall', and others "rebel". People denounce the rebels, and yet try to play down those who fall, and not realize it may be a symptom of something wrong with the whole enterprise; just like with those other groups they do recognize the error of.
    OK, and now you're the one generalizing. Not all groups that are denounced as "new-evangelical" preach a message that weak. Many do preach the plan of salvation.

    What I see them more often being denounced for is music and worship style, Bible translations, or some author mentioning a psychological concept (as little as "woundedness", or "dysfunction").

    Then, these other generalities, such as weak message (including the totally watered down "hot selling" message of some "personalities"), or the "associations" of some respected leaders are thrown in and lumped together as the whole problem with new-evangelicalism.

    The latter two issues I would say are more legitimate. Yet they become a broad brush painted onto the whole movement, which is then denounced as totally "apostasized". (Including a denomination as infamously conservative as the SBC!)
    And this is exactly what you are complaining about, now that the IFB is catching some heat for a change.
     

Share This Page

Loading...