There's an IFB church I know of with a lesbian minister who sprinkles babies in the name of the mother, daughter, and spirit. This IFB church is member of PCUSA, which apparently is fine with it. I wouldn't presume to tell you what IFB means.
-
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!
Diffference between independent and Southern Baptists -part II
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
There's an IFB church I know of with a lesbian minister who sprinkles babies in the name of the mother, daughter, and spirit. This IFB church is member of PCUSA, which apparently is fine with it. I wouldn't presume to tell you what IFB means.
Lets see
A) I am a Baptist
B) I am a fundemantal
C) and our SBC church is independent!
Why would a Baptist church be in the PCUSA?
That's pretty weird. I have heard of (small) Presbyterian churches approving Baptist ministers to deliver services when they're in between pastors.
I was mocking those who were implying that IFB means nothing. There's no such thing as an IFB PCUSA church. Although, I did run across a tiny Presbyterian denomination that could be described as IFB. The denomination's website even had an anti-drinking article which argued that you have to look at context to tell if the wine was alcoholic or not, an ad hoc nonsense argument that doesn't work. Well, IFB except for the IFB denomination's allergy to the word denomination. Indeed, there are numerous small Presbyterian denominations, some of them fundamentalist.
A lot of people, especially Baptists, have a great misunderstanding of what a denomination is. It's not about influence on a church, but about synergy. It's a good thing.
Actually, I am trying to figure out if his post was a joke or what - it makes no sense.
at least most jokes make sense.
This is an important point. I think when discussing denominations, we often are using the same words but using several different dictionaries.
It goes further down the rabbit hole when we get into the debate over whether or not Baptists are Protestant.
I personally think of denominations in two ways --one general, one specific.
My general understanding would be broad groups of churches with similar beliefs that distinguish them from other churches. For instance:
*Presbyterians (for their elder-driven church structure and Calvinistic/Reformed tradition)
*Lutherans (obviously the association with Martin Luther and their theological distinctiveness vs. other Reformation-era belief systems in sacramental theology)
*Anglicans/Episcopalians (for the via media Catholic/Protestant hybrid polity and theology)
*Methodists (association with John Wesley, Arminian theology [in all but the explicitly non-Wesleyan churches, e.g. George Whitefield], and church structure/itinerant clergy)
*Pentecostals (Holiness movement with heavy emphasis on charismatic gifts)
*Baptists (congregational polity, credobaptism only but denying baptismal regeneration)
etc.
(Of course, in the liberal versions of any of these churches, the theological distinctives almost entirely vanish. At that point, polity and liturgy are the main differences, if there is any difference remaining.)
---
In a more specific sense, it would be the specific organizations like the SBC, PC(USA), PCA, ABC, UMC, Assemblies of God, LMCS, ELCA, etc
----
In my framework, IFB churches would be loosely denominational in the first sense but definitely not in the second.
Southern Baptists would be denominational in both senses.
But my framework is only one of many.
I respect the argument that the SBC is not a denomination because local churches have autonomy to remain or to leave fellowship at any time (with some exceptions for SBC-funded church planting ventures), but I think it's hair splitting to some extent. IMO, the difference isn't whether or not the SBC is a denomination but whether or not it is a centralized denomination. In the case of the SBC, it is a decentralized, congregation-driven denomination, whereas the UMC and the Episcopal Church (USA), for instance, are centralized, hierarchical denominations. The PCA and PC(USA) are somewhere in between due to the structure of presbyteries. All are denominations in some sense, though, because there is an official structure (of whatever variety) to them.
To me, at least, the very name IFB implies a Baptist church (informal, general denomination) that is not in a formal denominational structure of any kind. IFB churches do sometimes cooperate voluntarily with other churches but not under the umbrella of a distinct separate entity. I admit that my understanding could be flawed, though.
I think some Baptists unaffiliated with the SBC might think that there is a hierarchy within the denomination of local, state, and national groupings, when it isn't like that at all. An SBC-affiliated church may choose not to affiliate with any local or state groups and vice versa. Most SBC churches probably choose to affiliate with one (or more) at each level, and the level of overlap is very high.
Last edited:
If it is a member of the PCUSA it is NOT an IFB
Independent Fundamental Baptist church does have a woman preacher, much less one that is a lesbian.
Methodist maybe, Luthern probably, Assembly of God possibly, Episcopal more than likely, but IFB - nope.
Been there, done that. They were a tremendously devout folks who truly loved the Lord.
Not just different dictionaries, but plain falsehood about how demonations work. The difference between an average Presbyterian and Baptist churches isn't denominational influence, but their respective traditions. Denominations have almost zero control over how a member church runs. SBC churches are "independent", so are most other protestant churches.
Denominations provide seminaries, Sunday school materials, missionaries, church loans, accountability, etc. They provide things that are difficult for most churches to provide for for themselves, on their own. Every member church is free to take it leave what is being offered. And, if a member church feels imposed on, it can just leave the denomination.
IFB churches lean on the work of other denominations. They might hire pastors who graduated from an SBC seminary or use the Bible translation made by the SBC (if they're not KJVO). IFB churches themselves work together, to some degree, for various things such as conferences, as well as sharing a theological culture that defines them as IFB. If they worked together more, they'd accomplish more.
Some denominations, like UMC, have a lot of bureaucracy, but at the end of the day, hardly anything is imposed on local churches that the local churches didn't voluntarily sign on to the first day they became UMC. But, the same is true of SBC and IFB.
You have some inaccuracies.
The UMC regularly move their "pastors" and assign them without regard to the local assembly. They are hierarchy controlled and driven. The local group may have a certain autonomy, but it is only perception not complete independence.
The IFB churches do not lean on the work of other denominations.
They have their own schools and seminaries. I do not know of an IFB church that would hire a SBC seminary graduate.
Imo, Tennessee Temple probably came the closest to being a cross over school. It was considered IFB but was still tied into the local SBC.
Another School that was similar was the Chriswell Center for Biblical Studies. It was considered SB, yet a number of students from IFB churches would attend because of the sound teaching.
There may be some, but I can state that if they do, they are usually placed into a "training" mode in which they are "educated" in the IFB standards. For example, the music standards of the IFB church are certainly not that of the typical SB church.
The only Bible translation that I know that is Baptist is the Holman. Most IFB are KJV preferred.
IFB actually accomplish more than nearly any other grouping of churches. For example at the local level, the activity and outreach programs are more soul winning aggressive. At the foreign missionary level, the IFB have the highest accountability of any group. They are all responsible to the local supporting churches and must communicate regularly directly with those that support them.
Because Baptists are not protestants, there is no hierarchy, yet there is influence building and recognition.
Some denominations do have more control than your post suggests. Churches in many denominations (UMC and Episcopal Church USA, for instance) generally have their facilities tied up with denominational restrictions. They may have a fair level of autonomy in terms of day-to-day decisions, but if the church wants to leave the denomination, it may have to do so without any church facilities--even if the church itself was the source of the initial funding.
As agedman's post indicates, IFB churches do have their own areas of influence, and I don't think there's a whole lot of overlap with SBC areas of influence. IFB and SBC churches share some core doctrinal beliefs, generally, but they are quite distinct, culturally speaking. The contrast becomes even greater when you look at the younger, contemporary-style SBC churches vs. the average IFB congregation.
I don't have statistical data or anything to back this up, but based on anecdotal evidence, I'd also contend that the SBC probably has a much higher level of internal diversity in theological beliefs, worship style, and cultural practices than U.S.-based IFB churches have (collectively).
That and the typical IFB church is gaining membership, and I read (don’t remember where) that the average SBC church has less than 100 members and is in decline.
it is an interesting trend.
That and the typical IFB church is gaining membership, and I read (don’t remember where) that the average SBC church has less than 100 members and is in decline.
it is an interesting trend.
To be fair, there are many, many SBC churches--probably too many, I would argue. Many of the smallest churches should probably consolidate with another nearby church (or churches). I understand that in some areas, this isn't possible, but it really doesn't make a lot of sense to have a bunch of small, declining Southern Baptist churches fairly close to each other.
That being said, consolidation might not be the best thing, either. The toxicity of some churches isn't necessarily something anyone would want to spread. Some toxic congregations are churches that may simply need to die off (as a congregation--not the people in it) because they are not honoring God.
But for the small congregations who really do have the right kind of focus on glorifying God but have difficulties with resources, etc---they may need to consider joining hands with other like-minded churches close to them. Sometimes this may mean selling off property, which can generate revenue for kingdom-oriented matters. Very often, churches have enough space to absorb a small congregation entirely without having to invest in any additional facilities, so it could be an economical thing to do (but only if God leads).
It's probably the case, though, that de facto consolidation is in play. Larger churches with more resources often attract people from smaller congregations. I don't think that's necessarily a right or a wrong thing. I do think it should depend on God's leading. People can definitely change churches for frivolous or selfish reasons, but it is also very possible for a person to leave for a larger church because God is calling them to a place where he will use them in a way not available at a smaller church.
That's not to say that large = good. There are many smaller congregations faithfully serving God, and sometimes people even leave larger congregations for these churches because they may be able to serve better there or to become more integrated in a smaller faith community. And if the large church is large but not honoring God, that's another factor. It's simply easier to miss losing a few families in a large congregation than it is to miss them leaving a small congregation.
--
Also, and this is very much a speculative generalization here---so I could be completely wrong---looking at things from the SBC side, it's probably fairly likely that the average IFB church has a higher level of expected commitment than the average SBC church. I've never been a member of an IFB church (or even an attender for more than maybe a handful of times in my entire life), so I'm speaking as an outsider, for sure.
But from my second-hand knowledge of IFB church members and my personal knowledge of SBC churches and ministers, I tend to think that being a member of an average SBC church is probably "easier," for lack of a better term. I say this primarily because IFB churches appear to be further (on average) from the mainstream of evangelical Christianity in terms of worship style, Bible translations, and cultural expectations.
Generally speaking, the further removed something is from social norms, the more difficult it is to retain someone who isn't heavily invested. The average IFB church is probably going to be very counter-cultural, so its growth will likely not come from those following the path of least resistance. If you join an IFB church without having grown up in that environment, you probably are making that choice with the expectation that it won't be the "socially acceptable" thing to do.
SBC churches in conservative regions are probably closer to the social mainstream for the areas in which they are located, so it's not as big of a cultural leap to join an SBC church as it is to join an IFB church. Now, if we go out to liberal areas, joining an SBC church probably would seem pretty far out of the mainstream,and we would be dealing with the same situation as with IFB churches.
Additionally, I think IFB churches on average probably offer a greater deal of certainty in church matters. Some people are attracted to a straightforward approach in church---KJV only or KJV preferred congregations have a sense of common conviction that appears to be stronger than the flexibility of churches that are open to a variety of modern versions. I say this as someone who prefers the ESV, NASB, and CSB, too.
It doesn't mean that preferring the KJV is right or wrong, but I think that someone would err to think that a congregation strongly committed to a belief that the KJV is THE best (or even the only legitimate) translation in English wouldn't also gain a sense of cohesiveness in its community as a result.
The same goes for beliefs on alcohol consumption, attitudes toward aspects of secular culture, etc. If you have a sense of unified certainty, that creates a sense of community that you can't otherwise replicate.
Again, I'm not saying that any of these things are necessarily good or bad--a community can have cohesiveness around terrible things, neutral things, or great things. But the SBC's model as a "big tent" denomination does make things kind of fuzzy.
For instance, if an SBC church is trying to thread the needle in terms of worship style, it very well may alienate most of the congregation by not being traditional enough or contemporary enough at the same time. Theologically, an SBC church may very well have a pastor who is a 5-point Calvinist tending toward Covenant Theology leading a church that is all over the map soteriologically speaking with a strong tendency toward Dispensationalism.
That's not to say that IFB churches are monolithic on these points, but I think there is probably less of a spectrum in the average IFB congregation.
Anyway, I should probably put an end to this meandering thesis.
One IFB writer of years past said. "We are bound together by a rope of sand."
Trying to use the word denomination when talking about a specific Baptist grouping is like trying to nail jello to the wall. Which why I use terms like sector and subsector of the Baptist Galaxy.
As for missionary giving, my hoe church uses both budgetary and designated giving.
Trying to use the word denomination when talking about a specific Baptist grouping is like trying to nail jello to the wall. Which why I use terms like sector and subsector of the Baptist Galaxy.
As for missionary giving, my hoe church uses both budgetary and designated giving.
I am sure there a few out thee - now that the liberals were herded ouf of the SBC seminaries.
Temple was a IBF school for many years - was that long ago that HPBC went back into the SBC. Of course now, TT has merged with Piedmont Baptist College.
Holman Bible Publishers assembled an international, interdenominational team of 100 scholars. Many IFB are King James only
"must communicate...w/those that support" --- Well, I tell you- does that mean every month, ever year - what do they say....Let me give you a couple of examples - 1) a IFB missionary, I knew personally - ended up in a German jail - a lot that had been going on. when I got back stateside - I was talking to a pastor who happened to be the treasuer of the mission board - he was grateful of my giving him the facts of this individual. 2) I was talking to a IFB chaplain -who had a Living Bible on his desk - I asked him how his home church thougth about that - His answer- "who says they know"! These are two examples I know of personally - I wonder how many more examples there are.?
(as usual) this is not universal acceptence on this statement. (New thread on this discussion)
Rope of sand?
SBC?
LOL
W.A. Criswell characterized your SBC denomination as held together "like cables of steel" by means of the CP 'cooperative missions' scheme!