Fundamentalist's Leader

No one I can think of. And I speak as a person who fellowships with the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International. Considering the fragmented structure of Fundamental Baptists, it's hard to see one man as a leader. We're kinda like the Eastern Orthodox with a lot of equals among equals (patriarch of this, patriarch of that, metropolitan xyz and abc) but no pope or capo de tutti capo.

Now if you're talking about the top tier of leadership. Then, there is a flattened pyramid. However, what the president of the FBFI says may or may not hold any water with a man who fellowships with the BBF or vice versa.

Even the Drs. Bob Jones were just part of a group. Yes, they were the most well known on a national basis. But they were not the leaders of Fundamentalism.

 

"Since Jack Hyles is gone, his son is in some sort of shame, John R. Rice is gone, Curtis Hudson" Seems none of these were ever spokesmen for the movement as MLK was for his.

The fundies were from all backgrounds and kind of had one that stood out here and there in their own groups.

I don't recall any one "Leader" of the Fundies.

I'm open for a new position and power, what is the pay?

OR were you looking for a nomination Rhet?

 

Me! Meee!

 

The movement is too big now. It is too varied and has too many factions to have one leader. It doesn't need any one leader, anyway.

For that matter, it didn't have only one leader in the 1950's and '60's, though John R. Rice came the closest to being at least a spokesman through the Sword of the Lord. Even by the 1950's you had various groups with their own leader/leaders: the FBF, BBF, WBF, GARB, Carl McIntyre's people, etc.

Besides, as a Baptist born in a Baptist hospital and bred in a Baptist home and church, I'm wondering, what group of Baptists EVER had just one leader other than the Lord Jesus Christ? We are stubborn, cantankerous bunch!

 

I nominate Rhet and pipe dude.

I second those nominations.

All in favor, say aye aye. AYE AYE AYE AYE!

The ayes have it we have two clear winners. Now for acceptance speeches gentlemen.

Come on fellows SPEAK --- SPEAK --- SPEAK!




hmph um hmpfff ... well hum uh hmpff... knew my split personality would get the best of me one of these days

 

I don't think we need a "leader." Our leader should be Jesus Christ and Him alone.

 

We would shoot him in the back at the first meeting anyway. Who wants that job?

 

See there? I, even I only, am left; and they seek my life, to take it away.

 

The world still thinks that the leader of
the Fundamentalists is JERRY FALLWELL.

 

Ed,

Got them fooled don't we? "I", not me, but the all egotistical "I" is our leader these days. Why do we have to have a man to lead us. We can't even get two church members to agree these days much less an entire "movement." As soon as some man gets some measure of success in the ministry he gets too full of himself. Then he is of no use to the Lord.

 

That does it, Neo! You're out of my movement!

 

When I was a teeneager, 25 years ago , the largest fundamentalist conference would have been the Sword of the Lord conference. If you had gone to one of those conferences, you would have heard speakers who pastored churches which were among the largest and the fastest growing in the USA. The names were names like Rice, Hyles, Falwell, Van Impe, Roberson, Hutson, Dollar, etc. The emphasis was on soul-winning and church growth.

Today a fundamentalist conference is apt to be quite different. It is likely to be held at a church that operates a seminary or Bible college. The conference will be smaller, probably in the hundreds, possibly approaching one thousand. There will be preaching, but it will most likely be expository, not topical. The speakers may be pastors, but there will also be a mix of seminary/college professors, and even missionaries. Notably, there are no long lines after the sermons of people waiting to get their Bible signed by the famous pulpiteer. If topics are covered, they are apt to cover theological issues as well as practical subjects and issues in counseling. The emphasis is on church planting and discipleship.

Go back and look at a list of speakers at one of those SotL conferences from the 70s and ask "Where are they today?" "What happened to those churches?" Unfortunately, the church growth movement in fundamentalism died is a cess-pool of moral and financial failure. Many of those speakers wound up in disgrace and many of those churches are a shadow of their old selves.

Today's fundamentalism is smaller, quieter, less flashy, less strident, less legalistic, and led by people whom I judge to be true servant-leaders. I think that a solid fundation is being built in fundamentalism and I think that it will continue in good health, though it might not get the notice or recognition that the old fundamentalism did.

 

To all of my constituents out there:

"If nominated I will not run;"

"If elected I will not serve!"
quote------------

Well if that is the way you are going to be then it is pipedude all the way, if he can hire enough security to protect himself! Of course that will take some good fund raising, anyone good at that?

 

Jack Hyles wasn't a leader in fundamentalism for more than 20 years before his death, and his role as a leader even then was questionable. Falwell hasn't been a fundamentalist for more than 20 years either.

Rice and Jones were leaders back in their day, along with RV Clearwaters, and some others. There is no real "leader of fundamentalism" today. Fundamentalists are more local church oriented than movement oriented these days.

Swaimj's comments are certainly appropriate.

 

I was so impressed with my first sermon as Fundamentalism's new leader this morning, I sat down on the front pew and signed my own Bible!

--
Pipedude III

 

They're right, there are so many different groups out there now.....

In my circle, we wouldn't consider today's Bob Jones to be of the same sort as the first Dr. Bob Jones, Sr.

I know Bob Gray is well-known in his circles, Jack Schaap is considered by many to be just as much of a leader among his group as his father-in-law was.

I think in general we shrink from the idea of having any one particular person that we call a leader of more than his particular church.

After all, if we had just one man that a majority considered THE leader, wouldn't we just be accused more of "following a man?"

 

I dunno, pipedude. There are only two of us Fundamentalists left, and I've been worried about you lately.

 

Seriously, here's another new direction Fundamentalist has taken in the last 30 years. Beginning with the great growth of BIMI in the 1970's, spurred by the huge missionary conferences (200 missionaries at a time) at Highland Park Baptist Church/Tennessee Temple U., Fundamentalists have quietly sent many 1000's of missionaries around the world. There are at least 4 IFB mission boards with over 500 missionaries, and many smaller boards. I've been told that we IFBs now support more missionaries around the world than the SBs, and I believe it (sorry, SBC fans! ).

Fundamentalists now pay more attention to worldwide evangelism than to individual fundamentalist leaders, and that is as it should be.