Drop the Title "Fundamentalist"?

[evangelist6589]

(Emphasis mine)

Last week our tiny fundamentalist church brought in almost sixty children during VBS. Three of those children were the children of two of the group leaders helping, one was dropped off by her mother, one was the pastor's grandson, and two were the grandchildren of another lady helping out. The rest all came via bus ministry. Our church is located in a very poor, semi-rural area and most of the children who attend on Sunday mornings and during VBS come from the trailer parks surrounding the church. If it were not for our church bus ministry, these kids and teens wouldn't be in church at all. If it weren't for door knocking, nobody would know who to contact to sign a consent form for the child to ride the church bus.

Furthermore, plenty of parents nearby are more than happy to let a local church "get their kids out of their hair" for a couple of hours once a week. Our bus children are fed breakfast, attend Sunday school, and then go into children's church after our congregational hymns and announcements.

This is a good thing and by doing this you are helping others. You are not a bigoted blogger posting libel about some pastor when you do not have all the facts.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I would be against any church avoiding the name they practice. The same problem exists our local area with the name "Baptist." Some churches have changed the name to a "Worship Center." Others make big, bold lettering on the name, the word Baptist is in very small letters.

I do not see Catholics, Presbyterians, JWs, Mormons, or anyone else running from their name. By golly, if you are going to belong to a church, stand up for its beliefs and wear it like a badge of honor. Otherwise, find a church that meets your spineless courage.

The PCUSA is pretty much run by women any more...or effeminate men (who need testosterone shots)...go there, they will love to have you...don't even need a Bible.:laugh:

 

[Sapper Woody]

Along with using the term "fundamental" I wonder if these churches realize their outreach techniques are dated as well? [snip] bus ministries, [snip] And who wants to send your kid away with strangers on a school bus for the three hours?

It is extremely hard for me to not get mad at this ignorance. But, especially since I just posted in another thread about how we would answer if Jesus asked us what we were writing here on the board and why, I'll keep it civil - ish.

Not too many years ago (less than 15), a young boy rode the bus to the church I was attending as a young teen. The boy's parents did not go to church, and as far as I know, never have. He got saved through the bus ministry, started coming to the church regularly, kept coming as a teenager, and ended up going to Bible college with a call to preach. I have lost contact with him since he went to Bible college, and so don't know the rest of the story. But the bus ministry resulted in his coming to know the Lord and learning and growing in Christ.

Fast forward to just about 7 years ago, back to right before I joined the military. I was an assistant pastor at a church in Illinois, and also served as their youth minister. A young teenage boy (about 13) rode the bus one morning because someone cold called at his door, and there was a promotion going on. He came that day, ended up getting saved that day, and started coming regularly. About two months later, his mother started coming to church because of his testimony. She had a salvation testimony, but had been out of church for a few years. She came back to church and became an active member, helping out in the ministry.

This teenage boy had an older friend, the same age as me, who had gotten saved as a young teen and had also gotten out of church. This teenage boy told his friend about me, and it turned out that myself and this friend had some similar hobbies and interests. We became friends, and this friend ended up getting back into church. At the age of 25 he went to Bible college. While not in the ministry full time today, he is an active and productive church member.

Now, anyone who says the bus ministry is outdated or doesn't work, doesn't know what they are talking about.

 

[Sapper Woody]

That's great! I'm coming from the perspective of a city dweller, so I stand corrected on the use of bus ministries in your circumstances.

Also, both my scenarios were in the city. Carbondale, IL in the first; and Joliet, IL in the second. Both big cities.

 

[Don]

Woody - sent you a PM.

 

[InTheLight]

Now, anyone who says the bus ministry is outdated or doesn't work, doesn't know what they are talking about.

I never said the bus ministry didn't work, I said it was dated. I guess I should have qualified it by saying it was dated in my neck of the woods.

 

[PeterM]

I never said the bus ministry didn't work, I said it was dated. I guess I should have qualified it by saying it was dated in my neck of the woods.

I would agree that it is dated. I would also contend that it's also probably not the most effective or efficient ministry given the task at hand. If the sole goal is to reach children, a stand alone bus ministry can certainly be effective. The problems arise when we get past childhood.

For our church, the strategy is a bit different. Our ultimate goal is to reach men/husbands/fathers. You get the dudes, the dominos fall for the rest of the family... usually... not all the time, but often. Can a bus ministry be effective in that overall strategy? Absolutely, but it requires people seeing children's outreach ministry for what it really is... a means to an end.

Now, before anyone gets angry... we love kids and want them to enjoy a relationship with God. We want them to come to Jesus!!! However, we know that 2-3 hours on the church campus can never compete with all the junk most kids are getting at school/home for the rest of the 165 hours in a given week. If we can reach dad and mom, the child will then be raised by godly parents and the church can actually do its job of encouraging and supporting parents who are the single best children's ministers anyway!

 

[John of Japan]

I've been asked to weigh in here, though I'm reluctant to do so because of the uninformed and hostile opinions that always appear in such threads, including this one already. But I'll try a post and see what happens.

First of all, some fundamentalists have stopped using the name with little fanfare. Check out the website of various fundamental schools, such as "Who We Are" and "History" on www.bju.edu for example. You won't find the term there. About 20 years ago Bob Jones III was here in Japan for an alumni meeting to which I was invited because I had gone there 2 years. At that time Dr. Bob said he thought the term was not very useful anymore, and we all talked about what to replace it with.

The term has been totally redefined by the secular media, who now use it for "fundamentalist Islamists," whose beliefs, methods and goals could not be more different from fundamentalist Christians. Sadly, the term has also been totally redefined by evangelicals. Witness the posts on this thread already by people who just don't get it.

As for myself, I'm ambivalent. I call myself a fundamentalist here on the BB, but one term is as good as another as long as I'm standing on the fundamentals of the faith against liberalism and other heresies. The secular media more and more are anti-evangelical and anti-Baptist, never mind anti-fundamentalist. If we are looking for secular approval while faithfully following Jesus, it simply will not happen.

Are you a faithful disciple of Christ? The world will hate you, no matter what term you use. "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John 15:19).

 

[12strings]

Thanks John,

And for those who wonder how a non-Fundie can relate with grace to a fundie...please see this: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/20-reasons-i-dont-take-potshots-at-fundamentalists

 

[Bob Alkire]

Thanks John,

And for those who wonder how a non-Fundie can relate with grace to a fundie...please see this: http://www.desiringgod.org/blog/posts/20-reasons-i-dont-take-potshots-at-fundamentalists

I'm not much into John Piper, read some of his work that have been a blessing and some not so much so, but I with him on this one. Maybe because I am one.

 

[agedman]

I've been asked to weigh in here, though I'm reluctant to do so because of the uninformed and hostile opinions that always appear in such threads, including this one already. But I'll try a post and see what happens.

First of all, some fundamentalists have stopped using the name with little fanfare. Check out the website of various fundamental schools, such as "Who We Are" and "History" on www.bju.edu for example. You won't find the term there. About 20 years ago Bob Jones III was here in Japan for an alumni meeting to which I was invited because I had gone there 2 years. At that time Dr. Bob said he thought the term was not very useful anymore, and we all talked about what to replace it with.

The term has been totally redefined by the secular media, who now use it for "fundamentalist Islamists," whose beliefs, methods and goals could not be more different from fundamentalist Christians. Sadly, the term has also been totally redefined by evangelicals. Witness the posts on this thread already by people who just don't get it.

As for myself, I'm ambivalent. I call myself a fundamentalist here on the BB, but one term is as good as another as long as I'm standing on the fundamentals of the faith against liberalism and other heresies. The secular media more and more are anti-evangelical and anti-Baptist, never mind anti-fundamentalist. If we are looking for secular approval while faithfully following Jesus, it simply will not happen.

Are you a faithful disciple of Christ? The world will hate you, no matter what term you use. "If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you" (John 15:19).

I have cast about for some time in the attempt to come up with a word for folks like you. :laugh:

Actually, I am in complete agreement.

Some time ago, I even started a thread on that particular topic and it (as most do) went all over the place.

The world is not our friend and never will be. For example: Billy Graham did wrong in mixing worldly compromising neo-evangelicals and modernists who did not embrace the "fundamentals" into his "campaigns." He should have listened to Dr. Bob and your grandfather, but chased after fame (and fortune - though some would deny it).

 

[John of Japan]

I have cast about for some time in the attempt to come up with a word for folks like you. :laugh:

Actually, I am in complete agreement.

Some time ago, I even started a thread on that particular topic and it (as most do) went all over the place.

The world is not our friend and never will be. For example: Billy Graham did wrong in mixing worldly compromising neo-evangelicals and modernists who did not embrace the "fundamentals" into his "campaigns." He should have listened to Dr. Bob and your grandfather, but chased after fame (and fortune - though some would deny it).

Careful there. Criticizing Graham will get you in trouble with some people! One of my first threads here on the BB simply pointed out that Graham cooperated with liberals (an historical fact), and boy was I lambasted:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=4309

 

[saturneptune]

Careful there. Criticizing Graham will get you in trouble with some people! One of my first threads here on the BB simply pointed out that Graham cooperated with liberals (an historical fact), and boy was I lambasted:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=4309

One does not have to be in total agreement with a name a group of believers has developed to express their faith to respect it. While I do not agree completely with the Fundamentalist positions on daily living, I respect and admire them displaying their name proudly.

What I do not respect are Baptist churches that either eliminate the word "Baptist." Another tactic I have noticed here locally is putting the rest of their name on their building in large letters, then putting the name "Baptist" in small letters on another line. If one believes something, proclaim it to the world. If you are ashamed of it, find somewhere else to worship.

 

[Mexdeaf]

One does not have to be in total agreement with a name a group of believers has developed to express their faith to respect it. While I do not agree completely with the Fundamentalist positions on daily living, I respect and admire them displaying their name proudly.

What I do not respect are Baptist churches that either eliminate the word "Baptist." Another tactic I have noticed here locally is putting the rest of their name on their building in large letters, then putting the name "Baptist" in small letters on another line. If one believes something, proclaim it to the world. If you are ashamed of it, find somewhere else to worship.

So how did people know what we believed before we had church signs? Hmmm...

I'm unashamedly Baptist, but I personally wish some "Baptist" churches WOULD take Baptist off of their sign.

And some do not have the word on their sign who put my "Baptistness" to shame.

So, not a big deal, IMHO.

(We don't have a sign, our church is just getting started, but "Baptist" is in the name).

"Fundamentalist" is a great name but unfortunately the meaning has changed as John pointed out.

 

[saturneptune]

So how did people know what we believed before we had church signs? Hmmm...

I'm unashamedly Baptist, but I personally wish some "Baptist" churches WOULD take Baptist off of their sign.

And some do not have the word on their sign who put my "Baptistness" to shame.

So, not a big deal, IMHO.

(We don't have a sign, our church is just getting started, but "Baptist" is in the name).

"Fundamentalist" is a great name but unfortunately the meaning has changed as John pointed out.

A question sort of related? Why do you think it is that this is never an issue for Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Lutherans, even Mormons? Why does this seem to be for the most part focused on various stripes of Baptists?

 

[Mexdeaf]

A question sort of related? Why do you think it is that this is never an issue for Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, Lutherans, even Mormons? Why does this seem to be for the most part focused on various stripes of Baptists?

Because we are autonomous and like to fight more than they do.

 

[John of Japan]

One does not have to be in total agreement with a name a group of believers has developed to express their faith to respect it. While I do not agree completely with the Fundamentalist positions on daily living, I respect and admire them displaying their name proudly.

What I do not respect are Baptist churches that either eliminate the word "Baptist." Another tactic I have noticed here locally is putting the rest of their name on their building in large letters, then putting the name "Baptist" in small letters on another line. If one believes something, proclaim it to the world. If you are ashamed of it, find somewhere else to worship.

I appreciate your attitude.

And I agree with you about the word "Baptist." Churches drop the name because they think they can grow bigger without the stigma, but churches actually grow bigger when they care about people, not because of changing their name.

 

[Bob Alkire]

I appreciate your attitude.

And I agree with you about the word "Baptist." Churches drop the name because they think they can grow bigger without the stigma, but churches actually grow bigger when they care about people, not because of changing their name.

Amen, brother!!!