Taxonomy of Fundamentalism (IFB)

[fmcsimmons]

Hi all,

I have scoured the web and looked for resources to no-avail regarding this. What I am looking for is a brief overview of the different "camps" in American fundamentalism today. When I say fundamentalism I am referring largely to Independent Baptists.

For example, it appears that the various factions seem to be split by the various fundamental colleges (PCC,Hyles-Anderson,Crown, etc) Is there anybody who is more well versed who could briefly outline these different "factions" as it were and possibly give a few distinctives for each? I understand it is far from cut and try but a nice clear outline would be super helpful to use for reference purposes.

Thanks,

FMS

 

[DrJamesAch]

Hi all,

I have scoured the web and looked for resources to no-avail regarding this. What I am looking for is a brief overview of the different "camps" in American fundamentalism today. When I say fundamentalism I am referring largely to Independent Baptists.

For example, it appears that the various factions seem to be split by the various fundamental colleges (PCC,Hyles-Anderson,Crown, etc) Is there anybody who is more well versed who could briefly outline these different "factions" as it were and possibly give a few distinctives for each? I understand it is far from cut and try but a nice clear outline would be super helpful to use for reference purposes.

Thanks,

FMS

There may be some popular Baptist preachers that are more recognized because of their public statements (David Cloud, Peter Ruckman, Lance Ketchum, Robert Sumner, John Piper, Matt Olsen, et al) but because the they are still independent Baptists, you will be very hard pressed to find anything that resembles a "faction" other than those who refuse fellowship with particular followers of the above named examples.

I know that may seem like I just described a bunch of factions, but there really isn't an organized collective faction that follow one particular set of established dogmas like a Missouri Synod or Diocese, etc..that's what makes them independent.

 

[fmcsimmons]

There may be some popular Baptist preachers that are more recognized because of their public statements (David Cloud, Peter Ruckman, Lance Ketchum, Robert Sumner, John Piper, Matt Olsen, et al) but because the they are still independent Baptists, you will be very hard pressed to find anything that resembles a "faction" other than those who refuse fellowship with particular followers of the above named examples.

I know that may seem like I just described a bunch of factions, but there really isn't an organized collective faction that follow one particular set of established dogmas like a Missouri Synod or Diocese, etc..that's what makes them independent.

Eh I know what you mean but there are definitely "factions". Not in the strict sense of the way you are saying but there is a definite distinction between the "Hyles crowd" and the "Sword of the Lord" folks and of course the BBF guys and etc etc. I was just looking for somebody familiar with these different "crowds" and some of their minutia.

 

[John of Japan]

I wasn't planning to post here anymore. There's just too much animosity and even hate towards us fundamentalists on the BB. But this seems an innocuous enough subject that I'll see if I can help. Note that there is much cross-pollination in these groups. I'm supported by some from each. Note also that I do not include the SOTL as a faction, since it has no direct ties to any school or mission board, though it does have conferences.

1. GARBC: originally came out of the N. Baptists; main mission boards are BMM and ABWE; main college: Baptist Bible College and seminary in Clarks Summit PA; generally not KJVO.

2. Southern fundamentalists: originated from the SBC; main mission board is BIMI; main schools are Pensacola & Crown (Tennessee Temple was so in the '60's to 80's but no more); most are KJVO.

3. FBC Hammond: originated through Jack Hyles' influence and ministry mostly from Southern fundamentalists (like Bob Gray from TX) and HAC grads; mission board is FBMI; school is Hyles-Anderson College. Is KJVO, but has eased its stance somewhat.

4. FBF affiliated: originated out of the N. Baptists; main mission boards are BWM and GFA; many grads from BJU, MBBC, Pillsbury (now defunct), Central Seminary, etc.; definitely not KJVO.

5. BBF: originated from J. Frank Norris influence, but distanced themselves; mission board is BBFI; main school is Baptist Bible College in Springfield, MO; currently there is a struggle between old school KJVO pastors and new school type BBF, with the old school supporting Heartland for their college.

6. Independent Baptist Friends International: In a recent development Clarence Sexton (Crown College) and Paul Chappell (West Coast Baptist College) have banded together to promote the Great Commission and fellowship among IFBs. It remains to be seen whether this is an actual movement or just a fellowship.

7. IFBx: extremists do exist. They may have a small college under their church, and send out missionaries only through the local church. But they are not a faction, really, though they may fellowship with churches in the area. And many who are labeled this way are good, gracious people and don't deserve the term "extremist."

8. Bible Presbyterians: originated with the exodus by fundamentalists from the liberal mainline group; led for many years by Carl McIntyre.

9. IFCA (Independent Fundamental Churches of America): some would say this group is no longer fundamental, but I don't know enough about its recent history to say.

 

[evangelist6589]

I wasn't planning to post here anymore. There's just too much animosity and even hate towards us fundamentalists on the BB.

True this is a not a IFB website. I know of other forums that are more geared towards IFB. Its not we hate you, its that we see the man made religion and the legalism of the IFB movement and have rejected it. Many IFB frown upon the Way of the Master which is bad. You know why? Because on the Way of the Master podcasts contemporary christian music songs are played, and CCM is heavily frowned upon in IFB churches and schools. I know as I went to BJU!!!! But my point is John is that why do IFB hate CCM so much? The theology of Way of the Master is rock gold, so why do they make such a big deal about the music????

I took my fiancé to see David Jeremiah last October and whenever the music was played she sat down and did not sing. David Jeremiah is very conservative, yet was not conservative enough in his music. She is a work in progress and I hope that she grows in the faith and learns the errors, fallacies, and legalism of the IFB movement. I mean come on David Jeremiah? He is a man of God, so why frown upon his music? Absurd. Also many IFB are very big on only using the KJV. Nothing wrong with the KJV, but the modern translations are better and use more accurate manuscripts. Why do they still use the KJV? Because of "tradition" mostly.

I have lots more objections to the IFB movement and you can read them here.

http://gracelifepulpit.media.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/deadright_.pdf

 

[John of Japan]

True this is a not a IFB website. I know of other forums that are more geared towards IFB. Its not we hate you, its that we see the man made religion and the legalism of the IFB movement and have rejected it. Many IFB frown upon the Way of the Master which is bad. You know why? Because on the Way of the Master podcasts contemporary christian music songs are played, and CCM is heavily frowned upon in IFB churches and schools. I know as I went to BJU!!!! But my point is John is that why do IFB hate CCM so much? The theology of Way of the Master is rock gold, so why do they make such a big deal about the music????

I took my fiancé to see David Jeremiah last October and whenever the music was played she sat down and did not sing. David Jeremiah is very conservative, yet was not conservative enough in his music. She is a work in progress and I hope that she grows in the faith and learns the errors, fallacies, and legalism of the IFB movement. I mean come on David Jeremiah? He is a man of God, so why frown upon his music? Absurd. Also many IFB are very big on only using the KJV. Nothing wrong with the KJV, but the modern translations are better and use more accurate manuscripts. Why do they still use the KJV? Because of "tradition" mostly.

I have lots more objections to the IFB movement and you can read them here.

http://gracelifepulpit.media.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/deadright_.pdf

Why are you attempting to hijack this thread? I suggest you think up a positive contribution instead of criticizing your fiancé here. Perhaps you should speak to her directly and correct her that way instead of here. (Good luck with that.)

And no, I'm not in the slightest interested in your objections to the IFB movement.

 

[evangelist6589]

Why are you attempting to hijack this thread? I suggest you think up a positive contribution instead of criticizing your fiancé here. Perhaps you should speak to her directly and correct her that way instead of here. (Good luck with that.)

And no, I'm not in the slightest interested in your objections to the IFB movement.

I am not sure why you interpreted what I had to say as a criticism of my fiancé and that I am hijacking a thread. But I will say that sin must be exposed, and I will expose the IFB movement and all man based evangelism methodology.

 

[John of Japan]

I am not sure why you interpreted what I had to say as a criticism of my fiancé and that I am hijacking a thread. But I will say that sin must be exposed, and I will expose the IFB movement and all man based evangelism methodology.

The thread is not about your fiancé, CCM, what's wrong with fundamentalism, IFB sin, man-based evangelism methodology or anything else you have written here so far.

As for your own evangelism methodology, this is twice now that you've refused on various threads to answer posts of mine about evangelism and further discuss it with me. You obviously don't think much of my views of evangelism. Why should I then care about yours? The last time we interacted about it, you could not answer a most basic, honest inquiry about it, but instead emailed your method's guru, who then refused to reply to you.

 

[evangelist6589]

The thread is not about your fiancé, CCM, what's wrong with fundamentalism, IFB sin, man-based evangelism methodology or anything else you have written here so far.

As for your own evangelism methodology, this is twice now that you've refused on various threads to answer posts of mine about evangelism and further discuss it with me. You obviously don't think much of my views of evangelism. Why should I then care about yours? The last time we interacted about it, you could not answer a most basic, honest inquiry about it, but instead emailed your method's guru, who then refused to reply to you.

If people wish to be rude to me then so be it. I only seek to proclaim the word of God. Apologies for offending you, sorry..

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Putting my Moderator and Admin hat ON.

And these are the reasons you want to highjack this thread. I agree with JoJ. There is an air of animosity towards Fundamentalists on this Board.

I am not sure why you interpreted what I had to say as a criticism of my fiancé and that I am hijacking a thread. But I will say that sin must be exposed, and I will expose the IFB movement and all man based evangelism methodology.

 

[agedman]

I wasn't planning to post here anymore. There's just too much animosity and even hate towards us fundamentalists on the BB. But this seems an innocuous enough subject that I'll see if I can help. Note that there is much cross-pollination in these groups. I'm supported by some from each. Note also that I do not include the SOTL as a faction, since it has no direct ties to any school or mission board, though it does have conferences.

1. GARBC: originally came out of the N. Baptists; main mission boards are BMM and ABWE; main college: Baptist Bible College and seminary in Clarks Summit PA; generally not KJVO.

2. Southern fundamentalists: originated from the SBC; main mission board is BIMI; main schools are Pensacola & Crown (Tennessee Temple was so in the '60's to 80's but no more); most are KJVO.

3. FBC Hammond: originated through Jack Hyles' influence and ministry mostly from Southern fundamentalists (like Bob Gray from TX) and HAC grads; mission board is FBMI; school is Hyles-Anderson College. Is KJVO, but has eased its stance somewhat.

4. FBF affiliated: originated out of the N. Baptists; main mission boards are BWM and GFA; many grads from BJU, MBBC, Pillsbury (now defunct), Central Seminary, etc.; definitely not KJVO.

5. BBF: originated from J. Frank Norris influence, but distanced themselves; mission board is BBFI; main school is Baptist Bible College in Springfield, MO; currently there is a struggle between old school KJVO pastors and new school type BBF, with the old school supporting Heartland for their college.

6. Independent Baptist Friends International: In a recent development Clarence Sexton (Crown College) and Paul Chappell (West Coast Baptist College) have banded together to promote the Great Commission and fellowship among IFBs. It remains to be seen whether this is an actual movement or just a fellowship.

7. IFBx: extremists do exist. They may have a small college under their church, and send out missionaries only through the local church. But they are not a faction, really, though they may fellowship with churches in the area. And many who are labeled this way are good, gracious people and don't deserve the term "extremist."

8. Bible Presbyterians: originated with the exodus by fundamentalists from the liberal mainline group; led for many years by Carl McIntyre.

9. IFCA (Independent Fundamental Churches of America): some would say this group is no longer fundamental, but I don't know enough about its recent history to say.

This is a great list, John!

On a side issue, do you think HAC should change its name - especially in the light of the continual scandal(s) and now that none of the Hyles family are involved with the school or church?

Btw, I agree about the animosity.

 

[John of Japan]

If people wish to be rude to me then so be it. I only seek to proclaim the word of God. Apologies for offending you, sorry..

That's okay. God bless.

 

[John of Japan]

This is a great list, John!

On a side issue, do you think HAC should change its name - especially in the light of the continual scandal(s) and now that none of the Hyles family are involved with the school or church?

Let me put it this way. If I were to found a Bible college, I definitely wouldn't stick my name on it! :saint:

Btw, I agree about the animosity.

But you rarely see us here on the BB rail against other groups such as the American Baptists, the SBC, the Primitives, etc., even though we have definite opinions about them. Sometimes it just seems like open season on us here. On the other hand, I'm glad that most of those who rail are not IFB! :smilewinkgrin:

 

[evangelist6589]

Let me put it this way. If I were to found a Bible college, I definitely wouldn't stick my name on it! :saint:

But you rarely see us here on the BB rail against other groups such as the American Baptists, the SBC, the Primitives, etc., even though we have definite opinions about them. Sometimes it just seems like open season on us here. On the other hand, I'm glad that most of those who rail are not IFB! :smilewinkgrin:

Best wishes

 

[Mexdeaf]

Putting my Moderator and Admin hat ON.

And these are the reasons you want to highjack this thread. I agree with JoJ. There is an air of animosity towards Fundamentalists on this Board.

And that is sad.

 

[John of Japan]

I have lots more objections to the IFB movement and you can read them here.

http://gracelifepulpit.media.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/deadright_.pdf

I finally took a look at this link just to see what it was, and found that it was Phil Johnson's rant, which I knew about and dismissed years ago. Now, Phil flat out lies about my grandfather, saying that fundamentalism is "...the party that always dutifully agreed with John R. Rice when he insisted that he was a great scholar." Now, I was baptized by him, knew him intimately, lived with him, heard him preach 100s of times, worked for him, read all his books, and he never once claimed to be a scholar, much less a "great scholar." So Johnson flat-out lied.

But the relevance to this thread is that Johnson had no taxonomy in his article. He simply lumped all IFB fellowships together, and that is a huge mistake historically and in the present. The various groups had different leaderships (who may or may not have gotten along), different emphases, different histories, etc.

 

[evangelist6589]

I finally took a look at this link just to see what it was, and found that it was Phil Johnson's rant, which I knew about and dismissed years ago. Now, Phil flat out lies about my grandfather, saying that fundamentalism is "...the party that always dutifully agreed with John R. Rice when he insisted that he was a great scholar." Now, I was baptized by him, knew him intimately, lived with him, heard him preach 100s of times, worked for him, read all his books, and he never once claimed to be a scholar, much less a "great scholar." So Johnson flat-out lied.

But the relevance to this thread is that Johnson had no taxonomy in his article. He simply lumped all IFB fellowships together, and that is a huge mistake historically and in the present. The various groups had different leaderships (who may or may not have gotten along), different emphases, different histories, etc.

John no one is perfect but Phil does make lots of good arguments in that article. Bye the way I heard it live in 2005 at the Shepherds Conference. I went to BJU for 2 years and was in IFB BJU churches in Greenville for 6 so I will say most of what he had to say was spot on. Not everything but most of it was correct. Besides your grandfather what other objections do you have to the article?

Bye the way Phil made it clear that he was going to broad brush the IFB movement for the sake of time.

 

[Don]

I thought this thread was about identifying different ifb "camps"?

 

[agedman]

I finally took a look at this link just to see what it was, and found that it was Phil Johnson's rant, which I knew about and dismissed years ago. Now, Phil flat out lies about my grandfather, saying that fundamentalism is "...the party that always dutifully agreed with John R. Rice when he insisted that he was a great scholar." Now, I was baptized by him, knew him intimately, lived with him, heard him preach 100s of times, worked for him, read all his books, and he never once claimed to be a scholar, much less a "great scholar." So Johnson flat-out lied.
But the relevance to this thread is that Johnson had no taxonomy in his article. He simply lumped all IFB fellowships together, and that is a huge mistake historically and in the present. The various groups had different leaderships (who may or may not have gotten along), different emphases, different histories, etc.

John, I agree with you.

The IFB movement didn't rise and fall on Dr. Rice. Certainly, he had literally millions of dollars flowing through his work - especially that of the Sword of the Lord, but not one hint of scandal. He was a great man of integrity, honesty, humility and generosity.

I miss him.

Folks, The Sword of the Lord was not just distributed to IFB churches and readers. I read it regularly as a SB. It had wide appeal and audience while under the control of Dr. Rice.

The IFB movement never coalesced around a single person. It never will. That is the independent part.

 

[John of Japan]

John no one is perfect but Phil does make lots of good arguments in that article. Bye the way I heard it live in 2005 at the Shepherds Conference. I went to BJU for 2 years and was in IFB BJU churches in Greenville for 6 so I will say most of what he had to say was spot on. Not everything but most of it was correct. Besides your grandfather what other objections do you have to the article?

Bye the way Phil made it clear that he was going to broad brush the IFB movement for the sake of time.

Phil made many errors, but at least one huge one. If we go down the road of discussing his article we should start a thread specifically for that so as not to hijack this thread. But I'm not sure I want to. Why should I dialogue with you on this?

In your post #5 you intimated that IFBs are a man-made religion, legalists, and the movement is full of errors and fallacies. You hope your fiancé will "grow out" of it, meaning the movement is immature Christianity. So you are hostile and dismissive of it (though the movement produced a lovely girl you want to make your wife). While I'm not yet refusing to discuss it with you, I'm wondering, why should I trust you to discuss it rationally and in a brotherly way?