Is IFB a denomination?

Since it was not my intent to hijack this thread, I will attempt to get back on track.

Our church looks at missionaries, and at other ministries on a case by case basis to decide who we can and cannot be cooperating in ministry with.

We really only select those who are independent, but it is because that is an important polity issue, not just for the sake of being called IFB.

Our church has even pulled out of the IFBA (Independent Fundamental Baptists Assoc) of Michigan because it was becoming more and more obvious that the direction of the leadership in the organization was not in line with what our church is trying to do. Several issues were being raised (all of which shall remain nameless) that indicated the divergent methods and philosophy. IMHO, many in the IFBA were trending toward extra-biblical pseudo-fundamentalism, and away from the traditional pure focus on Biblical fundamentals. Our church has attempted to be Word-centered, and to keep the focus of the church on those topics and issues which can be supported and based on direct Biblical principles. That is a position not shared by some of our brethren. Not that they are bad people or churches, or that we do not fellowship with some of the churches, but being affiliated with the association was becoming more of a problem.

It is never good to practice rubber-stamp approvals because someone is "in your camp" as can easily be seen on this board, get 100 baptists in a room, you have 100 opinions.

 

IFBs are not a denomination in any historic sense. Now we could play the liberal/neo-orthodox game and redefine the term so that it becomes usable for IFBs.

Historically denominations have exercised control over a group of churches to a less or greater degree depending upon the group. In being a part of a denomination some independence has been sacrificed by the church to become a part.

May I use my own pilgrimage to illustrate. I was raised in an American Baptist Convention church until the age of 17. In fact, I was immersed in that church as an unbeliever. BTW the Southern Baptist Convention split away from the the ABC (formerly the NBC) in 1845 over primarily the issue of slavery. When I first began attending an IFB church in my teens and heard the gospel for the first time, I was saved. I made the step of leaving the convention church of my parents and joined that IFB church. At the time that church was in the CBA but was in the process of becoming completely independent which they did in the summer of 1975. While I have been a member of various IFB churches since then, they have always been free from conventional connections.

The SBC has taken some steps to return to a biblical position, however, like the reformers they have not gone all the way. There is still conventionism controling churches and liberlism in institutions and missions. There are certainly good SBC churches in the mix, but by virtue of their connection with the convention they cannot be called truly IFBs, for they are neither independent nor fundamental.

 

I have been very confused by many of the churches in our area, who do hold to autonomy of the church, but remain in denominations like the SBC, the CBA, or the GARBC. While most of them are very independent in practice, it seems like a contradiction in some senses.

Since I only went to the same churches as Circuitrider until I was married I also grew up free from the bondage of denominationalism, and so far have continued the trend with my own family.

Also, Dr. Bob and Circuitrider, can you speak to other associations like the NTA, etc, what is the key difference between them and a traditional denomination? Is the affiliation similar to that with local associations, like the IFBA or the WFBC (Wisconsin Fellowship of Baptist Cheesheads?)

 

Circuitrider, SBCers are independent or fundamental? That is an odd statement.

Please explain who dictates to the churches what they are to do.

Then explain how they are not fundamental enough to be called fundamental.

 

Let's not forget the fact that the fundamentalists who eventually left the NBC never would have left if they had successfully regained control of the convention. They left because they failed and had little other choice. The opposite is in the process of taking place in the SBC, where liberals are leaving because they lost control. It seems pretty anachronistic to me to put the northern fundies on a pedestal over and against SBC conservatives in light of these parallels.

I am also amazed constantly by modern fundamentalism's willingness to separate over pet areas of doctrine (ecclesiology, eschatology, pneumatology, etc.) while glossing over massive difference in soteriology, christology and theology proper. There are plenty of teachers of bad doctrine within independent Baptist fundamentalism who get a pass because they're loyal members of the movement.

I know I'm a weirdo, but you can all still chime in and remind me of that if you like. I just weary of some of the head-in-sand criticism of the SBC from independents, while at the same time I am completely blown away by the SBC's willingness to surrender autonomy in favor of the pragmatism of efficiency (i.e. the Cooperative Program).

 

I think we would both agree that the foundational problem is conventionalism. Whether conservatives or liberals are in control is just a question about the color of paint you put on the barn. If the barn is built on a bad foundation, the color doesn't really matter.

Still, I have trouble finding fault with SBC conservatives for fighting rather than withdrawing and handing over the institutions to apostates. The error was made when the institutions were built under denominational control to begin with.

 

I guess I have always considered IFB as a denomination just like Southern Baptist is a denomination and General Baptist is another, etc. etc. It may be "independent" but it is not associated with the Southern Baptists or the Freewill Baptists or any other group, so it is separate (as a denomination) in my mind. Nothing wrong with that.

 

I guess the major difference is that there is no official denomination that IFBs are part of, they are independent from any denominational hierarchy, hence, the label independent.

 

I agree whole heartedly with this first paragraph. However, I am not finding fault with the SBC, I am simply stating that they are neither independent nor fundamental. However, if they keep going the right direction long enough, maybe they will achieve that goal. They could become true separtist fundamentalists, and they could dismantle the convention structure and be truly independent. BTW that is essentially what we IFBs did in the 1920s-1960s in leaving the NBC and CBA, but it has taken most of the years or an entire century for that to fully work out.

 

Circuit: "I am simply stating that they are neither independent nor fundamental. However, if they keep going the right direction long enough, maybe they will achieve that goal. They could become true separtist fundamentalists, and they could dismantle the convention structure and be truly independent."

Not the goal of this SBCer to be independent or "fundamental" (as evidently defined in your terms). I've lived in both worlds and choose to be a part of the one whose goal surpasses secondary separation.

 

Your snide remarks about fundamentalism really do grow tiresome, particularly to one such as myself who has a deep appreciation for the work of God that is taking place within the SBC. You really need to understand that your experience as an independent fundamental Baptist does not give you the right to paint all of them with the same broad brush.

I am personally committed to the principles of fundamentalism (secondary separation as it has come to be defined is not one of those historic principles). Frankly, I could not possibly care less about the Fundamentalist Movement. By that I mean that I have no interest whatsoever in joining the FBFI or some other fundamentalist association. That doesn't mean the next step for me is to join the SBC and/or take pot shots at people who do find value in associating with the movement.

Granted, there are plenty within the Fundamentalist Movement who love to take pot shots at the SBC and make generalizing statements as you have done towards fundamentalism. I find both approaches equally distateful. Can we have a reasonable discussion about the strengths and weaknesses with both groups without resorting to distorted caricatures?

 

Circuitrider,

I don't view "independent" and "fundamental" as wholly black/white issues. I know that sounds a little scary, so let me explain.

Some independent churches don't act very independently when it comes to missions (letting boards take leadership) and para-church ministries (letting college presidents or evangelists take leadership). There are other examples, but I'm short on time right now. They may be more independent than SBC churches who may go much farther, but I suspect that there are some independent churches that are practically less independent than some SBC churches.

Some fundamental churches don't act very fundamentally, either. Pastors of fundamental churches have been known to exercise a wide variety of choices in where they go to speak and who they cooperate in ministry with. Some send their kids to camps that teach doctrine of salvation that is radically different from what they preach in their pulpits. There are some SBC churches that build much tighter fences in their associations based on doctrinal differences than some fundamental churches would.

My point is that most SBC churches may be less independent and fundamental than most IFB churches, but there is some wiggle room in both groups. Being independent and fundamental is based on what you actually do, not what movement you're more closely associated with.

 

Actually if you read most of my posts regarding this subject matter, they are in response to what is falsely labeled "fundamentalism" (such as Circuit's use above).

Since you have no idea what my experience as an IFB is, you can make no credible comment on my caricture of the IFB movement as a whole. What I believe to be true about the "average" IFBer has little to do with the extremes those in the more rational camp try to avoid (pants on women, KJVO, etc). There are basic reasons why most IFBers choose to remain a part of that movement. I think I can articulate fairly clearly what those reasons are. Perhaps my brush is not as wide as you suppose.

Your own sentence reinforces my sarcasm. Thanks.

My statements are not directed toward historic fundamentalism per se, but rather the wayward step-child that has become known as "fundamentalism". It is from this prodigal that I flee.

Besides pot shots keep the dialogue lively.

Enjoy the fun. Don't take things so seriously.

 

Well, thanks for the clarification. I hope you will pardon the fact that I do believe accurate communication is a serious matter. Knowing that you did not intend for me to take you seriously is refreshing, I suppose.

 

While what I say is often painted in sarcastic tones, the core content of my posts are what I truly believe. Hence I do not refer to my self as a fundamentalist (due to the distorted meaning of the term in modern circles).