Featured Size of fundamental churches

Yes, they come in all sizes.

Jack Hyles grew FBC Hammond to over 14,000 before his scandal.

There is a decent IFB KJV only church here in my city of 12,000 that runs around 250, I believe. He seems to be a godly man despite his views on the KJV.

I have to assume they run the gamut like the rest of churches.

 

Yes, my church is IFB and we have well over 1200 people.

 

I am now serving in a fundamental church that runs about 700. My home church while I was a missionary ran 1200-1400.

I have found that many fundamental churches nowadays are putting the emphasis on church-planting in the States rather than growing mega-churches, which to me is a positive trend. One of our supporting churches ran about 800-1000, but had planted many churches in the DC area and was in the forefront of the church-planting movement among fundamentalists.

 

There are only 3 IFB churches in RI. Two are traditional and the other one is a 1500 member church which has turned very contemporary. They added a café and a book store. Like a Baptist mini mall. I cant stand it. The music is like a rock concert. The other two churches are the good old time IFB churches with about 200 to 350 members each.

 

I would have to ask what exactly is a "Fundamental Baptist" Church?
We are extremely fundamental and conservative on doctrine. We are not very conservative when it comes to style.(dress, music) I am not sure I fully understand what a "fundamental" church is for purpose of this discussion. To me, fundamental has always strictly been limited to doctrine.

 

Permit a brief diversion.

I once read that a Fundamentalist church is one which does not permit its members to smoke, drink or chew, or go with girls that do.

 

Ignore Tom and Salty. :smilewinkgrin:

The term "fundamentalist" was taken from a series of pamphlets (now in one volume), "The Fundamentals, printed in 1910-1915 to combat theological liberalism. A fundamentalist church is one which (1) believes in the fundamentals of the faith (the deity of Christ, the verbal-plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, the virgin birth of Christ, the 2nd coming, the substitutionary atonement) and (2) stands for the fundamentals; i. e., believes in and practices ecclesiastical separation from churches which do not stand for the fundamentals, that is theologically liberal churches.

There are many churches which believe in the fundamentals of the faith but do not take a stand for them against liberalism. These are not fundamentalist, though they may be good Christians who love the Lord.

Jude v. 3--"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints."

 

Thanks John.
That was the answer I was needing.

 

Glad to help. :saint:

 

I deny.... Naw, I guess I can't deny your statement. :saint:

 

Salty wrote: ". . . but would you also agree that over the years that many Fundamentals have added their pet peeves based on "interpretation" and now are consider doctrine"

Paidagogos: I would respectfully disagree. Doctrine is simply teaching; it is not a special genre or body of knowledge. Thus, any teaching on any subject is one's doctrine. One cannot disparage the opposition by relegating their teachings to a lower status by denying it is doctrine. Whatever we teach is our doctrine. Now, one may disagree with another's teachings (doctrine) but we must allow their teachings to be their doctrine.

Furthermore, regarding the matter of interpretation, we interpret every sentence that we read when we give meanings to words. Thus, everything that we say or teach is based on interpretation. Whereas some interpretations of Scripture are pretty obvious and agreed upon, others are not, especially when we make inferences and applications. Yet both inferences and applications are necessary for the practice of Christian living and teaching (i.e. doctrine).

So, Salty, your position is same old pabulum that I find distasteful and cannot swallow. Instead of using generalizations and negative connotations, perhaps you could give me the examples of some fundamentalist doctrines, probably related to practice, with which you disagree. Then, I may defend them or agree with you.

I look forward to your reply. Thanks for your time and consideration.

 

I understand what you are saying when you use the word doctrine. And that may be technically correct. But when most people talk about a church's doctrine, they mean its core beliefs. For example, Salvation. Or Cal/Arm. Or eternal security.

There are other issues, most of the time given second importance to doctrine. These we call standards. Pants on women, alcohol use, and music fit into this category. KJVO can go either way, depending on the church. Some take it (wrongly, in my opinion) to be doctrine, while others consider it standard.

Thirdly, there are preferences/practices. Men wearing suit coats falls into this category. Allowing or disallowing women to wear open toed shoes on the platform does as well. As with KJVO, some preferences become standards in some churches. Such as slits in skirts, or women having to wear pantyhose. Or shorts on men.

What Salty meant (half jokingly) was that some have taken these standards and preferences and preach them as if they were doctrine. KJVO is a good example of this. "Wimmin and their blue jeans!" is another.

In the IFB world, doctrine is a dividing line that decides if we disassociate with another church. Standards can be, depending on the importance of the standard and its prevalence (contemporary music in services).

The trend is to elevate secondary things, such as pants on women, above the dividing line and use that as a reason to disassociate with a church.

Salty wasn't being negative at all. He was merely jokingly pointing this out.

 

Aww! Well, there goes your "GI Brother" theory. Well I apologize that I misread your intent.

OK. Ignore that part of my post and take the rest.