The IFB/fundamentalist Baptist Style of Evangelism

[DHK]

Why, Rippon?


The thinking that a person could be "possessed" through a mole or some other skin blemish, that those who were "different" (read: mental disorders) were possessed, and many other excesses that resulted in the death penalty were not uncommon in puritan controlled areas.

The key word there is "Puritan controlled." In some areas the Puritans were able to make a state church as it were, and thus be able to "control" that particular area by their laws. Thus here you are comparing apples and oranges.

The actions of exerting total control over every aspect of the towns, deciding what was righteous and what was evil purely upon what they decided with little regard for the grace of God, cultural sensitivity, and much less the treatment of women is not unlike the IFB extremists from the 1960's - the 1990's. (and still goes on in pocket areas)

As I have previously mentioned I have been a member of an IFB church (not always the same one) since 1973 and have never experienced the things that you describe. This is again a wide generalization; a white-washing of an entire movement.
First, how on earth can this be true seeing that the IFB churches are normally the minority in any town or city?
Second, how can this be possible seeing it is not an Independent church of any kind that can have the power to "exert total control over every aspect of a town." That statement is just absurd.
Third, in every place I have been IFB churches have always been in the minority compared both to other denominations, other religions, and even to other types of Baptists such as the SBC.
Fourth, a person does not become a member of an IFB church except by consent, and they are the ones who voluntarily consent to the constitution of the church and the standards that it upholds. It is their choice. No one forces it upon them.

 

[agedman]

The key word there is "Puritan controlled." In some areas the Puritans were able to make a state church as it were, and thus be able to "control" that particular area by their laws. Thus here you are comparing apples and oranges.

As I have previously mentioned I have been a member of an IFB church (not always the same one) since 1973 and have never experienced the things that you describe. This is again a wide generalization; a white-washing of an entire movement.
First, how on earth can this be true seeing that the IFB churches are normally the minority in any town or city?
Second, how can this be possible seeing it is not an Independent church of any kind that can have the power to "exert total control over every aspect of a town." That statement is just absurd.
Third, in every place I have been IFB churches have always been in the minority compared both to other denominations, other religions, and even to other types of Baptists such as the SBC.
Fourth, a person does not become a member of an IFB church except by consent, and they are the ones who voluntarily consent to the constitution of the church and the standards that it upholds. It is their choice. No one forces it upon them.

Please note that I used the word "EXTREMISTS" with the IFB churches in which I was aligning with puritan rule.

Your post is accurate in application to the typical moderate IFB church, however, in the IFB extremist churches, my posts were fairly accurate.

There was a time when the puritans ruled England, and the New England colonies. Great excesses are documented in which neither you nor I would tolerate out of a church.

The typical IFB extremists also ran to very similar excesses and can be aligned with that of the puritan self righteousness. What was proclaimed sinful and not right with God, the style and fit of clothing as well as personal grooming, church attendance, tithing, pastoral authority, education, associations, .... were all carried to the extreme by both groups.

When both the Puritan and the IFB extremists folks became "self" righteous, it generally pushed out Godly righteousness.

Were the greater majority of IFB churches of this type?

You and I don't think they were. We are agreed on this

However, were/are the IFB extremist churches and pastors just small little back water enclaves? Some but not all. Some had huge influence.

I would contend that the IFB extremist, J. Frank Norris, had no little impact on the SBC, fundamentalism, Texas, the US, and US political views as related to Israel.

The IFB extremist, Jack Hyles, also had great impact of fundamentalism (if no more than giving it a huge black eye in how to deny sin). His teaching and style are still heavily used in the typical IFB extremist churches.

Pastors such as, Ed Nelson (Denver Co), are/were (in my opinion) champion pastors; leading IFB ministries that were not extremists and can be held as an example of both Godliness and balance.

 

[agedman]

The witch trials and executions were, of course, carried out by Puritans, but to tar the entire Puritan group for the horrific actions of a few seems unwarranted. Puritans had their warts, especially in not separating from the Church of England, just as Luther had his shortcomings. That doesn't change how our gracious God has used them.

Recently I read a thorough biography of John Winthrop (subtitled "America's Forgotten Founding Father", by Francis Bremer) who was the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay colony. Examination of his life, and of his most famous sermon, "A Modell of Christian Charity", would put the attitudes of many/most Puritans in a more just light.

Perhaps it would be wise to consider that Winthrop is a good example of what I am showing as not an extremist.

Certainly, he was "Lord or the Manor" authoritarian, and had a view of what the make up of who would be considered ruling class material and what the ruling class rule was to consist. But, that was his background. He had no other particular frame of reference for what would be considered proper governance but that in which he knew.

Some of his decisions would be hard to justify in today's economy both on political grounds or spiritual. But, for peers of his day, some were good, and some not so good.


Some not so good was his support of the laws in which a person could not have a "non resident" stay more than three days in their home, free speech rights were generally not allowed in the colonies, and of course he did not oppose slavery.

At least Winthrop did regard Roger Williams (a baptist) with enough regard to be of assistance, and there is evidence that the two carried on some level of debate between their views.

He was not as extreme as some in HIS time, but if you placed him as the pastor of an IFB church in this day, he would most certainly be quickly marked as extreme.

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Perhaps it would be wise to consider that Winthrop is a good example of what I am showing as not an extremist.

Certainly, he was "Lord or the Manor" authoritarian, and had a view of what the make up of who would be considered ruling class material and what the ruling class rule was to consist. But, that was his background. He had no other particular frame of reference for what would be considered proper governance but that in which he knew.

Some of his decisions would be hard to justify in today's economy both on political grounds or spiritual. But, for peers of his day, some were good, and some not so good.


Some not so good was his support of the laws in which a person could not have a "non resident" stay more than three days in their home, free speech rights were generally not allowed in the colonies, and of course he did not oppose slavery.

At least Winthrop did regard Roger Williams (a baptist) with enough regard to be of assistance, and there is evidence that the two carried on some level of debate between their views.

He was not as extreme as some in HIS time, but if you placed him as the pastor of an IFB church in this day, he would most certainly be quickly marked as extreme.

Thank you for this well thought out response. Some of your points emphasize the difficulty (and sometimes inevitable unfairness) of trying top judge the actions and motives of people from a long ago culture, and you are right on target in noting the "particular frame of reference". That includes the non-opposition to slavery, which also refected the overwhelming opinion of those times, and the Bible references to bondslaves were long improperly applied to "captive" slavery. (And still are.) There's a huge difference, IMO, between "master" and "owner".