Featured An Honest Question for Fundamentalists Baptists of Good Will

You're welcome! God bless. :wavey:

 

How do you know that "many IFB are mega-churches"? The site you showed was from 2008 before the pastor went to jail.

 

IFB folk don't go as much for building mega-churches as they used to, though FBC Hammond (the only IFB ch. on that list) is keeping up their attendance with the new pastor. With what I consider to be the maturity of the movement they are going more for church-planting and missions.

There is a number of IFB churches in the 15-20 range that are dying with the aging of the membership and the failure to reach young people. Other churches in that range are small because they are new church plants and will grow larger in time.

 

The median attendance might be more telling. In a distribution where the top end is 70 times the average, the median will almost always be lower. In this case, and without one iota of research, I'll guess that the median is in the 130-150 range.

 

If you are referring to the fundamentalist concept that started the movement... then no. It is neither dead nor dying.

If you are referring to the corrupted "children" of that movement that developed after 1950... then probably.

Essentially a "movement" needs sound biblically loyal doctrines, and understanding of what is "essential", AND genuine, pervasive Christian love. Many, including some of the numerically successful, fundamental churches have lost/perverted one, two, or all of those things.

For instance, "easy believism" is a wretched blight on the IFB movement. Undue focus on the "external" and superficial is doing damage.

 

The church of my membership is GARBC and we are staunch fundamentalists when it comes to the fundamentals of the faith.

I will admit that we are not the noisy in-your-face type (of which I was in my youth).

The Perry Rockwoods (People's Gospel Hour) of the church today however are becoming more scarce now-a-days.

HankD

 

Please elaborate.

 

Just who would say such a thing?

 

Sorry late to the conversation but this comment kind of sparked my interest.

By the TRUE definition of "fundamentalist" going back to the early 20th century origins, the GARBC is more fundamental than any of the Hyles type churches I've been in. The early fundamentalists were intellectual and responding to attacks from academia. They didn't argue that institutional education was wrong but that the modernist movement within "the church" was wrong.

They sought to focus on defending the fundamentals of the faith as based on the Bible... which does/did not include dress or music which divide so many churches now... Those issues have the old guard charging contemporary churches with godless liberalism.


The fundamentalist movement IMO needs to do a few things or else it will die.

One, it needs to focus on the fundamentals rather than attempting to force people to accept a culture in church that accurately reflects the 1970's but has no relevance to those who need Christ today. A senior member recently accused a pastor friend of mine of being "insubordinate" because he would not support a "platform policy" that required men to wear ties and women to wear dresses while on the "platform". I'd like to know what color Paul's tie was or if Lydia's hem was low enough....

Two, love needs to be renewed for the lost and each other. The church I was most recently in just split for about the 7th time. The core issue was that the old guard of the church cared more about control and keeping tradition than they did about the lost. One of them even referred some who might have been brought in as "undesirables". Those of us who left constitute almost everyone who was trying to do anything to grow the church's impact in the community. Frankly, they showed no regard for where the Lord wanted to take the church... they were there to protect their dusty style and traditions.

Three, it needs to get biblical in its polity. The church split reached its tipping point with a planned confidence vote for the deacons after the pastor had left and a search committee needed to be formed. As with many of these type things, one side was open, sincere, and honest... the other involved a couple of guys calling people on the phone or going to see them behind the backs of the deacons. The deacons short-circuited the "vote" and resigned due to these ungodly tactics among other things. Essentially, a congregational and deacon led style of gov't assures that the least spiritual person's vote counts as much as the most spiritual person's vote. Money and budget very often become the focus. The church looks more internally than externally... and not in a good way.

The people politicking for votes against the deacons had people attend on a Wednesday who had never attended on a Wednesday... in years. They had members there who had not attended in multiple years including one who is now openly homosexual. The rules wouldn't have allowed some to vote... but they were there thinking they could.

Splits in congregational churches are predictable... because there's no biblical precedent in the NT for the congregation to "vote" on many if any issues within the church. Practically, it just offers too many opportunities for mischief.

 

Thanks, but I'd like an answer from Salty...