-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
1980 was a pivotal year in Fundamentalism
- Thread starter John of Japan
- Start date
Nope, Orvie, the KJV was the version everyone used until somebody decided that they wanted to change and alter the Bible and remove verses and change meanings. It was good enough for my Grandpa, it is good enough for me. All these new versions that leave out scripture and change the meanings of phrases can go in the dumpster.
This is just what the OP is talking about.... KJVO was not part of the original fundamentals!
and the Geneva Bible was what was used until someone thought it should be replaced by the KJV!
No wonder the IFBs are losing young fundamentalists... they see the dark truth that Satan has corrupted the movement.
and the Geneva Bible was what was used until someone thought it should be replaced by the KJV!
No wonder the IFBs are losing young fundamentalists... they see the dark truth that Satan has corrupted the movement.
I think you have a point, Tinytim! My son helps to lead a Christian group at his college. They did a poll, and about half of the kids in the Christian group (conservative protestant)believes in reincarnation.
I think we have lost the emphasis of teaching the fundamentals to the younger generation. Of course, not all are guilty of this.
This is not the Version Forum. Further, discussions in this vein can be hashed out there.
I sent a PM to genesis12 with this information, but for anyone else who is interested, here are a couple of Internet resources:
There is a short biography (originally published as a pamphlet) on the Internet by Fred Barlow, a close friend of John R. Rice, at http://www.wholesomewords.org/biography/biorprice.html
For his positions on various issues, check out a site that has some of his books, sermons and pamphlets online at http://www.gotothebible.com/HTML/RiceJohn.html
God bless.
John Rice Himes
This is not the Version Forum. Further, discussions in this vein can be hashed out there. </font>[/QUOTE]I understand that KJVO should be discussed in the versions forum, but since 1980, the issue has derailed true fundamentalism... So, it should also be allowed to be discussed here (respectfully of course!), as it relates to how fundamentalism has changed since 1980... to ignore that point is to ignore a big change in fundamentalism,
And would hamper any intelligent discussion about the subject that JoJ has brought to the table.
We can't ignore something just because it is controversial..That would do more harm to the body of Christ than frankly discussing it in a civilized manner.
But since you are the moderator, I will respectfully abide by your decision. You mods have a tough job!
tiny
Folks, I will tolerate the discussion of the Version issue as it has effected the Fundamental Baptist Movement since 1980. (And even then I expect such a discussion to remain civil. No food fights allowed.) However, I will not tolerate direct discussion of the matter. That's the ministry of the Version Forum's Mods.
And with Squire's wise words in mind I want to make the point that in some cases at least, the battle within Fundamentalism on Bible versions has distracted the movement.
Fighting for the KJV as opposed to modern versions, even conservative translations, is a defensive strategy, and the major point I want to make here is that missions means attacking the enemy (Satan) where he is. When the Bible says that the gates of Hell will not prevail against the church, that doesn't mean that we wait for someone to bring the gates of Hell to us--we go where they are and storm them!! The versions issue, IMO, does not do that because it is a defensive strategy, but world missions does.
Until the 70's, Fundmentalists opposed liberal versions like the RSV and Good New for Modern Man. They wrote pamphlets and articles about such versions (I still have some pamphlets), but used conservative versions like the ASV (the ancestor of the NASV) in their studies, sermons and books. This usage supplemented the KJV but did not replace it, by the way. Even Jack Hyles in those days went for his ultimate authority to the original languages rather than a preserved KJV, as can be seen from his Let's Study the Revelation (1967).
Now before some of my Fundamentalist brethern (or sistern!) decide I've deserted the cause, I have no problem per se with Fundamentalists defending the KJV. What I have a problem with is when that becomes a major emphasis of a ministry. The Bible is not a shield with which to defend our brand of Bible-believing Christianity. It is a sword with which we are to go out and smite the works of the devil ALL OVER THE WORLD!! And that is where the maturity of the IFB movement lies.
Well, to answer that I have to go way back into IFB history. The first IFB missionary that I know of was John Birch, after whom the famous anti-Communist "John Birch Society" was named. Birch, out of J. Frank Norris' church, was killed by Communist Chinese right at the end of WW2 while on a mission for the US government. However, all through the 1940's and 1950's there was little effort among IFB churches in the area of missions. (The exception to this was the GARB.)
During the 1950's and 1960's, the IFB movement was growing by leaps and bounds in the States due to the emphasis in the "Sword" in particular on church growth. Also, BJU and Tennessee Temple saw huge growth during those years as the flagship schools of the IFB movement.
Then in 1960 Lee Roberson and others were instrumental in founding BIMI, and in the north my own board, BWM, was founded in 1961. BBFI was founded earlier, but by 1960 had 169 missionaries. All in all, my "guesstimate" is that IFB boards had no more than 500 missionaries worldwide by 1960. The support base (number of churches) for more missionaries and the emphasis in the colleges was just not there yet.
To be perfectly honest, John R. Rice, Jack Hyles and other leaders did not make a major emphasis of world-wide missions in those early days. One reason for this is that most IFB missionaries went out under evangelical faith missions until the 1960's, when many of them began to transfer out of such boards as TEAM and into the new IFB boards.
Now to get to the point of Gwen's question, by the 1970's and 1980's, the IFB movement had grown greatly, with the largest churches in many states being IFB churches. However, we had no real battles to fight. We had all taken our stand against liberalism and New Evangelicalism, and that was all old hat! So the movement could go one of two ways: expand world-wide (the right road), or look for a new issue. In a large segment of the IFB movement, schools, churches and preachers chose to make Bible versions the new issue to fight about. To carry on our growth in the 1970's, another large segment of the IFB movement turned to world-wide missions.
As I said before, the Bible versions issue is essentially a defensive stance. The IFB movement in the 1950's and 1960's was all about building great churches, an offensive strategy. Churches that now emphasize the doctrine of preservation (a minor doctrine as compared to inspiration, a major doctrine which we should be willing to die for) should turn to reaching the world for Christ (as well as our local areas) for our major emphasis.
actually, there is no fight here. My Pastor is higly respected across the nation fro his stance and for his knowledge on this topic. He doesnt' fight about it; he merely states the fact that the KJV is the closest we have to the original Textus - and other versions that leave out verses and change meanings (like "young girl" instead of "virgin" when speaking of Jesus' Mother ) are abberations and should be destroyed as tools of satan. We should not invite the "world" into out churches by bending and compromising on such things. The whole reason that the IFB movement was strong was the spirit of revival and re-commitment to the truth.
Lord, send a revival, and let it begin with me!!
Lord, send a revival, and let it begin with me!!
I take exception to John's characterization of the lack of world missionary emphasis among the IFB. I would point to the CBA and the follow on of Baptist World Missions. Just before he resigned his position as secretary of the CBA, Myron Cedarholm was sent on a round the world missions trip.
I can think of one problem. It may have taken ten or fifteen years for the churches coming out of the old Northern Baptist Convention to get the steam back up in their foreign missions program. And then balooey, the CBA split occurred.
I can think of one problem. It may have taken ten or fifteen years for the churches coming out of the old Northern Baptist Convention to get the steam back up in their foreign missions program. And then balooey, the CBA split occurred.
I haven't seen the mention of the movement from modernism to post-modernism. The IFB of the 50's 60's and 70's is still the same model that many in church life today! There where some that began to see the need to change methods in the 80's and this is when much of the fighting started up again. You had one group longing for the good ole days (which really weren't that good) and the other group realizing that people need to hear the Gospel in their context. I think you will find that much of the KJV nonsense really raised it's ugly head about that time. I can remember carrying and NIV Bible to chapel at PCBBC and feeling like such a rebel!
I see what you are saying, Squire, but let me run some data by you. I do agree with you that Dr. Cedarholm had a real heart for missions. He had a raw recruit going to Japan preach at MBBC chapel in 1978, I believe it was, and was very gracious to him. It would take more resources than I have to completely prove my point, but let me try.
When I was appointed in 1977, I was BWM missionary #36. This means that, remembering that some of these were single missionaries, if you include missionary wives (commonly done) there were about 65-70 BWM missionaries from 1961 to 1977. Not all of these were with the board at the same time, because of attrition due to retirement, quitting the field, quitting deputation, etc. So based on this figure, in 16 years there was actually not much growth in IFB missions, because many of the early missionaries came from evangelical boards. For example, in Japan, Jim Norton and George Phillips both came from TEAM to BWM.
The SOTL conferences almost never had missionaries speak, with the notable exception of Jim Norton at the SOTL 1974 National Conference. The SOTL itself had columns for evangelists, kids, soul-winning, church news, etc., but never a column for missions and/or missionaries. I do remember a sermon by Dr. Norton in the SOTL once, but that was the rare exception. Oh, yes, and when the editor's grandson was appointed to BWM there was a nice little article about him with his picture.
The FBC of Hammond "Pastors School" had virtually no missionary emphasis. I went to one of these in the late 1970's and noted that FBC had a huge missions budget--but they included their huge bus ministry as a missions expense!!
Again, both Jack Hyles and Hugh Pyle had big books about pastoring published by the SOTL in those days. Pyle's book had nothing about missions in it (zero, nada, zilch), and Hyles' book had nothing but a short chapter on the "Women's Missionary Society," and that was it. Books on the Sunday School by Hyles and Tom Malone had nothing about missions. And so it went!
Maybe I should have used "take a stand" instead of "fight." That's really what I meant. I don't know your pastor, but I hope he takes just as strong a stand for missions as he does on translation issues.
And I agree with you that the IFB movement was originally very strong with the spirit of revival.
I'm not quite sure what you are saying with this. Are you talking about the issues of music, the Willow Creek philosophy, etc.?
In my view, the basic IFB model should be applicable to all cultures and all ages. The movement originally emphasized: emphasis on fundamental doctrine (still necessary), opposition to theological liberalism (which still exists), the mandate for soul-winning and revival (both still necessary).
The style of music or ministry is secondary. What is vital to any vigorous Christian movement, and I hope the IFB movement never forgets, is the importance of compassionate, caring, one-on-one people skills. I like the title of a small book by Clarence Sexton many years ago: Won by One.
The typical lost sinner isn't going to care what kind of music you use if he or she knows you truly care about their soul and their troubles! It is no accident that, though it is much less common today, many IFB churches built their original ministry partly through the bus ministry--visiting the poor families of the town and winning them to the Lord.