Stuff Only IFB People Understand

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr. Huk-N-Duck
  • Start date Start date
I have heard that many fundamental bible colleges and seminaries back in his day would never allow a black man to attend and receive an education from their institutions. Liberal institutions, however, welcomed him with open arms!

It may be true that bigoted conservative Christians would not have let him in conservative cemeteries, but I highly doubt that’s true in colleges from northern parts of the US during his formative years. Regardless of that, from what I understand, MLK rejected his “fundamentalist” theological roots in his very young life, because the supernatural did not intellectually satisfy or stimulate him.
 
"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." 2 Timothy 3:5
Haha, quiet you fundy Bible thumper! I’m asking the resident forum progressive. 😁
 
Short answer, yep. What interests you about their religious intersection? Do you think there are religious similarities and if so, how?
I don’t really know a thing about what MLK’s religious beliefs were. I’ve learned plenty about his views related to civil rights, and I knew about his seminary training and double life, but I’ve never heard his religious views discussed.
 
You bring up a valid point, in that we Baptists/Fundys/Conservatives/Christians often shoot our own wounded. That is well worth heeding as an admonition, no ifs ands or buts.

But ;), the nuanced worthwhile aspect of the issue that you raise about this site and the problem of attacking each other while the devil dances with glee is also worthy of a little closer inspection. What should be readily evident, as you've been around and observed here a lonnnng time, is that within historical orthodox/conservative/evangelical Christianity ("biblical Christianity") there has always raged a legitimate battle (which you can also see within the text of the NT Scriptures, ie, Galatians explicitly) over the problem of legalism. Man always seems to want to add rules that bind other people's conscience and that addition is often overstating what God has explicitly given as law/command. On the other side of the coin you find that some people want to justify their immorality by exclaiming that their sin is magnifying the copious amount of God's wonderful grace (Rom 6:1). So the battle over antinomianism (sinning by railing against God's law and abusing His grace) and legalism (adding to explicit commands of God in order to earn favor with God) rages, and sometimes collateral damage occurs when we contend for those particulars of how legitimate faith plays out. Some contend in a manner that is hurtful and inconsiderate, not speaking the truth in love, and others contend sincerely with love mixed in to their conscientious sparring. So in the case at hand for this thread, some of the rules, no matter how well intended, become a vehicle to paint up a pig on the outside (or as Jesus said..."beautify the outside while inside you're white washed tombs" Matt 23:27). Summing that up, it's a false dichotomy to say that we should only be against the abortionists and T of LGNTQIA+ (and other similarly explicitly clear works of the devil). False doctrine of the kind that enslaves people to manmade rules and hypocrisy (as you noted with your example about pastoral immorality) is exactly what Jesus railed against the loudest when he walked the earth.

I'm sorry. I don't understand what you are saying. Could you please restate this so that I can understand what you are saying. Thanks.

Summing that up, it's a false dichotomy to say that we should only be against the abortionists and T of LGNTQIA+ (and other similarly explicitly clear works of the devil). False doctrine of the kind that enslaves people to manmade rules and hypocrisy (as you noted with your example about pastoral immorality) is exactly what Jesus railed against the loudest when he walked the earth.

By the way, unrelated, when I brought up MLK, I wasn't referring to his character or beliefs. I was saying that my pastor was extremely racist. Perhaps, it wasn't so much racism as that maybe he knew what y'all have said about him. I thought he simply didn't like him because he was black. I personally witnessed a black family being escorted from my church, one time. And one of our deacons was a Grand Dragon of the KKK so I assumed, perhaps wrongly that when he referred to him as Lucifer it was because of his race. Maybe it was because of what he didn't believe. Who knows.
ON THE OTHER HAND about IFB colleges and blacks, I think BJU might have had a rule that whites could not date blacks (intimating that blacks could attend) but I know for a fact, that Temple DID ALLOW black.s. I was friends with two when I was there. In fact, I can remember that we had black preachers preach in chapel. I clearly remember Dr S. M. Lockridge coming and speaking.

Please reiterate to me what you were saying in the last paragraph with "Summing that up . . . ". Thanks.
 
Last edited:
"Close" communion is what most Churches I have attended have followed and I do agree for the most part. It is a time of closeness and intimacy with the Lord and with each other as we examine ourselves. It is something not to be rushed or taken flippantly.

I believe those who take things to the extreme I have mentioned (Baptists anyway) are strict "Local Church" even to the point of rejecting the "Universal Church" and they are adamant about things like Baptist perpetuity (succession) to the point that they will likely re-baptize anyone who has not been previously baptized in a Baptist Church that they specifically know and approve of and can receive proper verification. Many Churches in the BBF are like this and Paul Chappell leans hard in this direction but not to the extreme of the congregation I was part of in Guam while I was there (which was BBF).
Sadly, some SBC churches do this, too. In fact, I was in one that split over this garbage back in 2005.
 
By the way, unrelated, when I brought up MLK, I wasn't referring to his character or beliefs. I was saying that my pastor was extremely racist. Perhaps, it wasn't so much racism as that maybe he knew what y'all have said about him. I thought he simply didn't like him because he was black. I personally witnessed a black family being escorted from my church, one time. And one of our deacons was a Grand Dragon of the KKK so I assumed, perhaps wrongly that when he referred to him as Lucifer it was because of his race.
In many cases, it was pure racism and we heard very little regarding his theological views. If they spoke any legitimate objections, the racism pretty much drowned it out.

And I have heard MLK being referred to as "Martin Lucifer Coon" from Baptist preachers. I believe there is little doubt that this is racist and certainly not the way any "Christ-Follower" should speak in reference to another person.

My parents are/were staunch Roman Catholic and have always equated Independent and Southern Baptists with racism and the KKK. After over 40 years, I have not been able to convince them otherwise. My parents would always "shut me down" whenever I tried to talk to them about the Lord and explain the simplicity of the Gospel. My father passed away in late 2021.
Maybe it was because of what he didn't believe. Who knows.
ON THE OTHER HAND about IFB colleges and blacks, I think BJU might have had a rule that whites could not date blacks (intimating that blacks could attend) but I know for a fact, that Temple DID ALLOW black.s. I was friends with two when I was there. In fact, I can remember that we had black preachers preach in chapel. I clearly remember Dr S. M. Lockridge coming and speaking.
Interracial dating/marriage was clearly taboo but this was mostly Black/White couples. The IFB Church I attended in Millington, TN gave such such interracial couples the deliberate cold shoulder and it was clearly implied to any visitors that they were not welcome back. I was taught that interracial marriage was not necessarily "sinful" but was something clearly not the "Best God had for us" and I took this to heart breaking my engagement to a beautiful Filipina girl who loved the Lord! I also believed I had been "Called to Preach" and I never saw preachers who were 'anybody' who had married someone outside their race!

A few years later, I ended up marrying a white lady and endured this marriage for 20 years until it was clear she wanted out and the marriage was over. The LORD truly has a sense of humor though bringing this same Filipina lady back into my life as she had lost her husband the same time my divorce was finalized! I have been married to her for over 9 years now and am 100% convinced that God made her JUST FOR ME and she is therefore God's absolute best for me! Too late to have kids with her but I am certainly enjoying "Making Grandkids" with her! And what's truly crazy is that when we got together, I had ZERO INTEREST in the ministry and now here I am in seminary with the LORD pushing me in this direction once again!

I was involved in prison ministry while stationed in San Diego and we had an annual "Revival" time where we brought in some preachers from the "Deep South" (Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Etc.) who would hold services in the different yards of the RJ Donavan Correctional Facility. Our Church (Lighthouse Baptist, Lemon Grove) had a significant number of military personnel and a few were in "Mixed" marriages which was a shock to these preachers and more than one came around asking me about it. One actually had the nerve to ask "Why doesn't your preacher 'thrash these folks' and run them off?" This was the early 90s!

Most of these IFB Churches loved having a few "token black folk" among the crowd but it was clear they were to "stay in their place" and not cause any trouble!

And you are right about Bob Jones University. I heard a black evangelist in the 80s who was a BJU grad and he defended their interracial dating policy which had become a huge news topic. I have spoken to other black men (who were fellow Christians) who felt the same way about interracial dating and not wanting "white men sniffing around their daughters" and such!

SM Lockridge was a treasure! I still love pulling up his old sermon - "He's my king! Do you know him?"
 
Last edited:
When I was 19, I briefly dated a young black lady. We were treated very harshly by some of the pastors and parishioners in the churches in the area we lived in. He parents couldn't believe the racism, especially since they were an interracial couple as well. The church they attended as a family was very conservative, but they accepted interracial marriage and showed from the bible how it was not only correct, but, was practiced in the Bible.
 
When I was 19, I briefly dated a young black lady. We were treated very harshly by some of the pastors and parishioners in the churches in the area we lived in. He parents couldn't believe the racism, especially since they were an interracial couple as well. The church they attended as a family was very conservative, but they accepted interracial marriage and showed from the bible how it was not only correct, but, was practiced in the Bible.
You are just a few years older than me and I recall the social climate of the late 70s/early 80s when I was coming of age. I was living in the suburbs of Houston that was predominantly white at the time but there were some blacks as well as Hispanics. We got along but pretty much kept to ourselves. White/Black couples were few and far between and they always raised eyebrows and audible "gasps" wherever they went! I know it was far worse in the mid-south/deep-south and I experienced this when I was in Millington, TN in 82-83 for my Navy specialty training and attended my first IFB Church!

I would say back then that it was probably not a good idea because the social stigma was only going to add tension and trouble in a marital relationship! You already have a great deal of stress and conflict if you are married within your own race/culture! Even today, an interracial couple had better consider the social and cultural implications. I have no regrets being married to the Filipina lady God has made for me (aside from not marrying her in 1987 when I should have) but the cultural difference have proved challenging at times!
 
Please reiterate to me what you were saying in the last paragraph with "Summing that up . . . ". Thanks.

Legalism, in various forms, is behind a lot of the theology taught in many of these uber strict Independent Baptist churches (under the guise of “standards”) and that legalistic teaching has dangerous consequences. These types of overly strict rule-oriented churches often lack the grace that should accompany gospel preaching, and their emphasis on rules/law results in fleshly self-righteous hypocrisy amongst its adherents. So some people here on the forum, many who have came out of such churches, despise and mock such doctrines. Does that make sense?
 
Legalism, in various forms, is behind a lot of the theology taught in many of these uber strict Independent Baptist churches (under the guise of “standards”) and that legalistic teaching has dangerous consequences. These types of overly strict rule-oriented churches often lack the grace that should accompany gospel preaching, and their emphasis on rules/law results in fleshly self-righteous hypocrisy amongst its adherents. So some people here on the forum, many who have came out of such churches, despise and mock such doctrines. Does that make sense?

I do understand that there were those in the church who DID look down on others who did not behave like they felt they should. I do understand how everyone here would not like self-righteousness. I don't either. I also abhor hypocrisy and I do acknowledge that there were and are self-righteous hypocrites in any church. I don't blame those here who dislike such churches. Not at all.

But I will say that there was a VERY big difference between the church that I grew up in and that of the Hyles "brand" (from which so many here seem to have come). It was like night and day. And this is what bothers me: that all independent Baptist churches are lumped together. "The Preacher Boy", especially bothers me, lumping all "IFB" 's together - as he makes a profit from his podcasts and his clothing line. The very word: "independent" means just that - independent of one another. The only common trait is the Bible and its belief in its inspiration. The church that I grew up in, was in no way, a circus. And when sexual unfaithfulness did rear its head from our leadership, the deacons did not sit on the platform and look the other way. They IMMEDIATELY and without hesitation - but with tears in their eyes - kicked the pastor to the curb.

But Alayman, you have not addressed what I asked you to address:

"it's a false dichotomy to say that we should only be against the abortionists and T of LGNTQIA+ (and other similarly explicitly clear works of the devil). False doctrine of the kind that enslaves people to manmade rules and hypocrisy (as you noted with your example about pastoral immorality) is exactly what Jesus railed against the loudest when he walked the earth."

Could you please expound on what you mean by that.

Thank you.

Gringo
 
Last edited:
But Alayman, you have not addressed what I asked you to address:

"it's a false dichotomy to say that we should only be against the abortionists and T of LGNTQIA+ (and other similarly explicitly clear works of the devil). False doctrine of the kind that enslaves people to manmade rules and hypocrisy (as you noted with your example about pastoral immorality) is exactly what Jesus railed against the loudest when he walked the earth."

Could you please expound on what you mean by that.

Thank you.

Gringo
Sorry Gringo, I wasn't intentionally dodging that aspect of your question, I just wasn't aware that was the specific thing you wanted addressed.

In post #83 you had said...

It just seems to me with 60,000,000 MILLION little babies being butchered and and the mother's right to her child's murder celebrated, by prayer having been banned in schools, with every type of violent and evil thing being promoted on television, and yes, with children being encouraged to dance in drag clubs and drag queens coming to school to read to them, that

y'all would have more to do than to mock your brethren.

I interpreted that statement (with your "it just seems" qualifier) as a minimization of the doctrinal sin(s) of legalistic ("standards") churches. So when I responded to you in reference to the LGBTQIA+ and abortion statement I was attempting to point out that it was the religious crowd (self-righteous pharisees who added to His law) that received the harshest rebuke of Jesus while He walked the earth (not those engaged in obviously immoral sexual sins, like the woman taken in the act of adultery). So I was pointing out that it's not good to ignore doctrinal sin at the expense of explicitly named debauchery of the flesh (dragtime story hour, abortion, etc). Both sins (legalism AND works of the flesh like sexual sins and perversion, which I believer are actually inextricably related) are fair targets to warn against.

And I totally agree with you in what you said in the first paragraphs of this most recent post regarding your former church (that all churches shouldn't be stereotyped or lumped together equally). My pastor is a Hyles Anderson graduate. He was saved and discipled in a very strict "standards" and hyper-separation environment. Yet when he surrendered to the call to ministry while in his mid-30s (ie, not a "preacher-boy" just cutting his teeth and gullible) he did so by leaving a lucrative middle-management position with a very large business where his potential to reach greater ambitions within corporate America was exceedingly promising. I say that to point out the fact that he had a level of maturity and common sense at that point of his life that he could think for himself to some lesser or greater degree when he went off to Bible school. His training at HAC nonetheless left him susceptible to the legalistic tendencies that we read about here on the FFF, but he never bought into that style of ministry. His convictions were very conservative, but he never forced them on our congregation in the brutish and bullylike fashion of men like Bob Gray, and always preached the Bible/gospel with ample amounts of grace. Another (former) FFF HAC pastor you may be familiar with that fits that same gracious (yet very conservative "standards") mold is Tom Brennan. That's why I believe many of the bad stories you hear about these colleges come from people who were pastored by men that would have been controlling mean-spirited dictators in whatever church pastorate they would have led. So yes, while I think it's fair to critically examine how a ministry conducts itself in regards to a harsh pharisee-like spirit, I agree with you that just because somebody who holds to a "higher standard" than I do it doesn't mean I think they should be lumped in with those who lack the spirit of grace in their administration of those doctrines/scruples (which is what I had said initially in this thread when you asked me if I had gone to Highland Park). I respect folk like Tom Brennan, and my pastor (who actually has broken away from the IFB "camp" stranglehold), as well as Lee Roberson even if I may not hold to all of their strict standards. On the other hand, without naming names, I believe it's right to question the ways of folk who emphasize cleaning up the outside ("standards") to the detriment of teaching to grow the inner man by way of a genuine intimate daily relationship with Christ.
 
Last edited:
Alayman,

Could you talk about the "doctrinal sin(s) of legalistic ("standards") churches.

What, exactly, do you mean by legalism? Give me some examples, please.

The only reference I have is from the church that I grew up in and then, Highland Park:

We firstly, were taught that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God and that the only remedy for this was the sacrificial death of Christ on the cross and that it was nothing that we could do but only what He did on the cross that could help us.

We were taught that one must wholly rely on his sacrifice and then once putting one's faith in Christ, set out to lead a life of devotion to Christ with the Bible as our guide. We were taught to come out from the world and to be different, to pray, to read our Bible, to witness, to avoid things that would hinder us in our walk with Christ. We were taught to avoid places and things that would tempt us in our flesh and cause us to yield to unnecesary temptations. Is that what you man by legalism?

Thanks,

Gringo
 
Not necessarily true in my experience. Many AWANA churches aren’t IFB.

AWANA!! I remember them. I was the "Pal" of the year one time when I was a child. I had a trophy that they gave me from that time and I had it until just a year or two ago when I went on a "purge" when I had a "minimalist" urge one day. I regret throwing it away, now.
 
has anyone ever heard of royal ambassadors?.... . i ask that because we have a really old book on royal ambassador campcraft in one of the book cases... . my dad told me it was like a christian version of the boy scouts back in the 1950s and into the 70s....mostly southern baptist..... . i have read through the book and it;s all really good information.. seemed like it would have been a sound program... .. he still has the pins and patches that were given to him back then.. but the fundamental baptist church he started going to as teenager didn;t have that program.... ....have any fundamental baptist churches ever been part of it?.....
 
has anyone ever heard of royal ambassadors?.... . i ask that because we have a really old book on royal ambassador campcraft in one of the book cases... . my dad told me it was like a christian version of the boy scouts back in the 1950s and into the 70s....mostly southern baptist..... . i have read through the book and it;s all really good information.. seemed like it would have been a sound program... .. he still has the pins and patches that were given to him back then.. but the fundamental baptist church he started going to as teenager didn;t have that program.... ....have any fundamental baptist churches ever been part of it?.....

Aleshanee,

My grandparents were Southern Baptist. And I remember that my grandmother had been a "sunbeam" which was for females and I think was like Girl Scouts. Therefore, I'm thinking that maybe Royal Ambassadors were the male equivalent. But I'm not sure. But I remember my grandmother telling me about the Sunbeams from her church.
 
There is a group associated with Assemblies of God called Royal Rangers
 
Aleshanee,

My grandparents were Southern Baptist. And I remember that my grandmother had been a "sunbeam" which was for females and I think was like Girl Scouts. Therefore, I'm thinking that maybe Royal Ambassadors were the male equivalent. But I'm not sure. But I remember my grandmother telling me about the Sunbeams from her church.
i had never heard of the program sunbeams before, until i saw it mentioned in the movie ensign pulver.... ..... but i always liked the name...:)... what you said reminded me that movie scene where pulver is stranded on a remote island and meets the only islander who can speak english..... the first thing the islander says is "Jesus wants me for a sunbeam"... i asked my dad about that too and he said it had been a bible study program for children..... ... ..but i wonder why programs like that were never continued?... ...it seems like they were a good idea..... .
 
Back
Top