Is it Typical In IFB Churches?

I went to the First Baptist Church of Hammond Indiana when Hyles was the pastor. Our church youth group was on a missions trip and we were swinging through the Chicago area on our way to the east coast. This was in 1972. I was expecting an uplifting service with a gospel message. Instead I got a yelling diatribe by Hyles against Nixon and the U.S. government in general for having recently signed the Salt 1 treaty with the "godless communists" in the U.S.S.R. There was an invitation tacked on at the end. I was severely disillusioned.

 

IMHO, it's all about methods and modality. Yelling or not yelling is not the issue, it is the message. But if the preacher gets excited and gets loud to the point of yelling, then it just might stir up the congregation to get excited too. (Enter the condemnation of emotional decisions). On the other hand, it might turn people off to the gospel.

Depending on where you are, how you grew up, and what you are used to, this type of preaching might be refreshing. Or it might look stupid. Me personally, I enjoy this type of preaching now and again. I don't like a steady diet of it, but every once in a while it can help stoke the fire a bit.

Also, another point to consider is that there is a difference between "yelling" and "yelling at". The preacher (imho) should never yell "at" someone. But if he gets excited, then let him yell. You wouldn't tell him to stop yelling at a sporting event if his team is winning. Well, guess what? Our team is winning! (Might not seem like it sometimes, but to use the words of a song; "I've read the back of the book, and WE WIN!")

 

:thumbsup: :applause:

 

Some yell, some don't.

It's nice if they at least teach the truth while they yell, but usually that doesn't matter because it's hard for me to understand people when they yell. I feel like I'm being abused or about to be and go into self-protection mode.

Some people seem to really enjoy it and feel like it really enhances the message. I've never found human spittle to enhance much of anything though, and it's probably the way the term "back-seat Baptist" came into use. They weren't trying to be closer to the exit, they just didn't want to get spit on during the message! :tongue3:

 

No it is not typical. It is typical of only one or perhaps two camps of most of the IFB churches that I am acquainted with, which is quite a few.

He has the wrong criteria for good preaching doesn't he?

A bit judmental. What does he mean by "others don't do anything"? If they exist they are doing something by the nature of their existence.

No, absolutely not!

 

Are we sure that we are not describing a traditional "Holy Ghost" rival speaker?
been in some pentacostal services that seemed that the preacher/evangelist was 'annoited" with the Gift of yelling!

Ironic, that 2 churches at opposite ends of Christiandom adopting exactly same practice to preach the Word!


My mine observations on IBF are they would tend to drift into law keeping as form of being spiritual, and that they were just "cookie cutting: out students, strong on telling them "because the Bible said so", but not big into seeing the other sides reasons why? Like in evolution, bible versions, other churches etc!

 

I don't know if "we" are sure, but I know that "I" am sure. :thumbs:

 

I've belonged to IFB churches since I was a boy and none of my pastors ever yelled or screamed. I have seen evangelists that do this but I don't go for it. I am not talking about preachers who get moved and raise their voice, that is sincere and effective. But these fellows who yell and shout seem superficial to me.

The most moved and convicted by a sermon I ever was was when a pastor from India spoke at our church once. He was very quiet, you had to really listen to hear him. His English was broken and difficult to understand. But he spoke with such love and sincerety that he literally brought me to tears. The Holy Spirit was truly upon this pastor.

 

Ditto.

Maybe it's a yokel thing?

 

In the margin of his sermon notes, the preacher wrote "Weak point here. Shout and pound pulpit.

 

many preachers, especially those of the pentacostal variety, seem to have the Spiritual gift of "screaming/yelling"

 

It is called "fire & brimstone" preaching & is a humanistic replacement for the Holy Spirit. The Spirit uses a small still voice to guide, correct & conform us to the image of Christ. Men use loud, condemning sermons to guilt believers into conformity into their own image. This trumped-up "conviction" through self-authoritative preaching was common in the IFB churches I attended.

 

I have heard some like that, but I believe they are in the minority.
I am beginning to think more and more that geography plays a role in this. If you want to hear those type of messages you can also go to a black Methodist church--way outside the realm of Baptist. I said geography because culture goes hand in hand with geography. I live in Canada.

 

And it's not common in most of the IFB churches I've been a member of, and especially is not common in the area where I currently live. Why is your experiential evidence more valid than mine?

 

Ones here in Mi thatI have met were strong in doctrines, but were judgemental as reagrding using KJV, dressing "churchy", and were also rigid in right and wrong in christian lifestyles... Conformity wwas their virtue, as long as it was to their standards!

 

I think what you're literally saying here Don is that since it has happened around you, then it must not be true. Thus what he is saying must not be valid. He, myself, others have experienced this very often among IFB churches. I take it that since you don't see it, it must be untrue.

 

Nope, but nice way to spin it.

See, there are several (including yourself) who say they see one way; there are several, including myself, who say they see another way. So if you say that you've seen it in hundreds of churches, so according to you it must be true of "many"; but I say I've seen it another way in hundreds of churches, so it must be true of "many"; which one is correct? Which one has more validity?

In other words, experiential evidence is based on a rather small subset, no matter how many times you claim "hundreds."

In another thread, now closed, I posed to you that there were at least 9,300 IFB churches; John of Japan has recently supplied the number of over 13,000. In that thread, you had supplied a link to churches claiming support for the KJ; however, none of them had "KJV Only" listed. I also pointed out that on that site, there were many duplicates, and quite a few advertisements rather than church listings. It took me three states to get a number of 114 churches claiming KJ support. Giving your argument the benefit of the doubt, I presented a statistical guesstimation/assumption that 75% were KJVO; at 38 churches per state (averaging the number from the three states that I counted up), that was 1,900. 75% of that is 1,425. For the sake of this argument, I'm assuming that all 75% are also shouting dictators. Out of 13,000 IFB churches, that represents about 11% of KJVO. Even if we make a leap of logic and bump that to 25%, we're still talking 3,250 churches out of 13,000.

So--experiential evidence is that y'all have seen hundreds of churches that fit the description. Statistics say the probability is that there are thousands that don't fit that description.

Suffice to say, my only point with this is that it's tiring to see all the IFB bashing, that inadvertantly lumps all IFBers into the same category.

 

The way I "spin" it? Nice. I simply showed you that just because you don't believe it doesn't make it "not so."

I find it hilarious that YOUR experiential evidence is "ex cathedra" anyone who disagrees with you (of all people) MUST be wrong.

Also, who is bashing? Stating what they do is "bashing?" Out of the many thousands of IFB churches, would you say there could be 200? 300? How many "hundred" does it take for it to be "hundreds?"

Please tell me exactly how small my "subset" is since you seem to, well, know everything Don.

Out of the many fellowship meetings I have attended, the selling of "KJVO" books duting meetings, literally HUNDREDS of preachers bought them out at the meetings. But, of course, I couldn't be telling the truth, right?

One more thing, many of these preachers that did these things were friendly and kind toward myself even though I didn't hold to their convictions.

By the way, there are "hundreds" of these churches in MO, AR and OK. They exist in the hundreds whether you believe they do, or not.

Thus your formulation and calculations stand incorrect. You know, we're probably just on the BB making all this up, right?

 

No; what you said was, since I said that it's not happening around me, it's not happening; that's not what I said at all. What I said was, that YOUR argument is actually supported by Michael: Since it happened to him, it must be true for all. Since we all know that's not true, thus my question about why his experiential evidence is more valid than mine--or anyone else's.

And I find it sad that you're twisting what I say, because I never said that he, or you, or any of the others is wrong. Which I went on to prove with my statistical example, showing that literally, "hundreds" of churches probably do exemplify what you say you've experienced; but that there are probably thousands more that don't.

No, stating that hundreds do, and not making any distinction for the thousands that don't, and thus making an over-generalization error against all, is "bashing."

Look at the numbers, dude. I don't know everything, never claimed it. So once again you go for the personal attack instead of arguing the facts.

Sure you could. But what about the thousands that weren't there?

Glad to hear it.

Hundreds of which churches? IFB in general? Most definitely. No argument. KJVO? Well, now we've got to start looking for actual identification of such, don't we?

Hey, you provided a website. I took the time to count up the churches in three states listed on that website. You want to spin that and call it "making it up," well, that's just a weak argument.

 

Talk about putting a spin on something.

What I stated was showing your attitude implies this, and it does. Your attitude comes across and is rightly interpreted in that since it doesn't happen around you, then others are merely making these things up. Own up to what you imply. You come across this way, and this is what you convey, and what you mean to convey. Anyone who says it is happening has to be wrong because Don doesn't see it.

Why not try the "Wow, that nonsense doesn't happen around here, that's really sad, why do you think that is...&c" instead of coming out with this attitude like others are simply not telling the truth?

No one including me have put a "spin" on anything, rather what I said nailed you concisely and that was your statement to skirt around the truth that you do in fact act as if you haven't seen it, and others say it's there, then it can't be true.

I'd say that is a haughty position of yours Don.