The influence of the 'new' IFB's.

[Tarheel Baptist]

You're right. Paul Chappell doesn't use the term fundamentalist anymore. He uses the terms: unaffiliated conservative Baptists.  You're wrong, it's not because they don't want the stigma of the former personalities. They don't want the stigma of who the media is portraying as fundamentalists... (example: ISIS, Warren Jeffs)

Both are right. "Baptist" is next. Now where do they even mention "Baptist" on that site?

The site is so innocuous that it is difficult to figure out what they are.

I guess they are going the way of the contemporary, relevant evangelicals who name their churches innocuous names like Mosaic, Crosscurrent, Journey....

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

You're right. Paul Chappell doesn't use the term fundamentalist anymore. He uses the terms: unaffiliated conservative Baptists.  You're wrong, it's not because they don't want the stigma of the former personalities. They don't want the stigma of who the media is portraying as fundamentalists... (example: ISIS, Warren Jeffs)

Both are right. "Baptist" is next. Now where do they even mention "Baptist" on that site?

The site is so innocuous that it is difficult to figure out what they are.

Let me help you:
http://www.ideaday.net/west/
http://www.ideaday.net/midwest/
http://www.ideaday.net/south/

Under the subheading Location.

 

[FSSL]

Under the subheading Location.

LOL! In the footer, they are meeting at a church with "Baptist" in its name.

What do they believe? They do not say.

If they are going to reframe the "Fundamental Baptist" direction, then they are not very convincing. Now... as far as the benefit of the conferences, I hope they have great success!

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Under the subheading Location.

LOL! In the footer, they are meeting at a church with "Baptist" in its name.

What do they believe? They do not say.

If they are going to reframe the "Fundamental Baptist" direction, then they are not very convincing. Now... as far as the benefit of the conferences, I hope they have great success!

I think they already are reframing Fundamental Baptist, by their influence among the millennial IFB Pastors. The old paths crowd would agree with your 'semantic criticism', I'm sure.

 

[Fresh Air]

I think they already are reframing Fundamental Baptist, by their influence among the millennial IFB Pastors. The old paths crowd would agree with your 'semantic criticism', I'm sure.

Not quarreling with you here, old friend... ...but the network you began recently, which includes younger independent Baptist men, by your own account, in some sense has to be limited to those men who are already inclined to agree with/fellowship with you. Again, by your own account, you are a current member of the SBC who stopped being independent Baptist a few years ago, and is gently/lightly transitioning your church for relevance. The school you speak most often of with respect is Liberty.

You say that the Idea day crowd is gaining traction with millennial IFB pastors. Which is exactly what I would expect from the crowd that would be around you. Again, not arguing with you about any of these things. What I am saying is that your sample is skewed. The more conservative IFB men, even the younger ones, would not be spending time in your network anyway.

Am I off base here?

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I think they already are reframing Fundamental Baptist, by their influence among the millennial IFB Pastors. The old paths crowd would agree with your 'semantic criticism', I'm sure.

Not quarreling with you here, old friend... ...but the network you began recently, which includes younger independent Baptist men, by your own account, in some sense has to be limited to those men who are already inclined to agree with/fellowship with you. Again, by your own account, you are a current member of the SBC who stopped being independent Baptist a few years ago, and is gently/lightly transitioning your church for relevance. The school you speak most often of with respect is Liberty.

You say that the Idea day crowd is gaining traction with millennial IFB pastors. Which is exactly what I would expect from the crowd that would be around you. Again, not arguing with you about any of these things. What I am saying is that your sample is skewed. The more conservative IFB men, even the younger ones, would not be spending time in your network anyway.

Am I off base here?

I was speaking generally, not exclusively from my personal experience.
I am sure that there are many younger men who would eschew the idea day crowd...but they, according to many still in the IFB movement, have a huge influence and it appears to be growing.

My personal experience is with 5-7 younger IFB pastors in our county who are looking for something other than what they see in the past history of their movement. You may be correct in your perspective...but I only know what I know. 

 

[AlvinMartinezVoice]

The great Jack Hyles would turn over in his grave if he knew about these millennials. Only one he would like would be the famous Caleb Garraway for sticking to the fundamentals and not conforming to the liberals and CCM music.

 

[subllibrm]

It is biblical that the older men are supposed to be preparing the younger to take their place as leaders. What I have experienced is the older men don't trust the younger to lead properly.  That would mean one of two thing; the older did not train properly or the younger did not learn properly. You can guess who the older men blame.  8)

 

[FSSL]

I think they already are reframing Fundamental Baptist, by their influence among the millennial IFB Pastors. The old paths crowd would agree with your 'semantic criticism', I'm sure.

I attended a fundamental Baptist seminary in the 1980s and 1990s. At that time, two terms were nonnegotiable- "Fundamentalist" and "Baptist."

I am not sure this is a mere semantic criticism. Fundamentalists, historically (and now), typically have made terminology part of their militancy.

Fundamentalism has always been militant and documented.

So, is this new movement RESTORING historic fundamentalism or is it REDEFINING and MOVING AWAY FROM historic fundamentalism? I think the latter. I see no documentation that they want to identify with the historical tenets.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I think they already are reframing Fundamental Baptist, by their influence among the millennial IFB Pastors. The old paths crowd would agree with your 'semantic criticism', I'm sure.

I attended a fundamental Baptist seminary in the 1980s and 1990s. At that time, two terms were nonnegotiable- "Fundamentalist" and "Baptist."

I am not sure this is a mere semantic criticism. Fundamentalists, historically (and now), typically have made terminology part of their militancy.

Fundamentalism has always been militant and documented.

So, is this new movement RESTORING historic fundamentalism or is it REDEFINING and MOVING AWAY FROM historic fundamentalism? I think the latter. I see no documentation that they want to identify with the historical tenets.

Define historical tenets.
I would say they are seeking to move away from the extra biblical 'doctrines' that define an old path fundamentalist. As to what they wish to be or do, I confess I don't know. I am merely an interested observer

 

[FSSL]

Define historical tenets. I would say they are seeking to move away from the extra biblical 'doctrines' that define an old path fundamentalist. As to what they wish to be or do, I confess I don't know. I am merely an interested observer.

There were core beliefs that defined fundamentalism, initially.
Here is a picture from one of their publications:

Later, a list of thirteen essential statements popped up to further define the movement.

Two sine-qua-non were always obvious: separation (individual and ecclesiastical) and a militant defense of the gospel.

Unfortunately, the militancy defense ended up becoming a capricious system established by the rise of Bible Colleges and expounded on by the Hyles group. Militancy moved into hair length, clothes, music and version.

So, if there is to be a RESTORATION of proper fundamentalism, we would at least see the above pillars expounded upon (without respect to denominational name).

I consider myself a historical fundamentalist. I reject the extra-biblical, social aspects of fundamentalism.

 

[Bruh]

You're right. Paul Chappell doesn't use the term fundamentalist anymore. He uses the terms: unaffiliated conservative Baptists.  You're wrong, it's not because they don't want the stigma of the former personalities. They don't want the stigma of who the media is portraying as fundamentalists... (example: ISIS, Warren Jeffs)

Both are right. "Baptist" is next. Now where do they even mention "Baptist" on that site?

The site is so innocuous that it is difficult to figure out what they are.

Non-Denominational Independent Fundamental Baptist?

 

[Walt]

There is a growing number of (mostly) younger IFB pastors and churches that have resisted the influence and traditions of past IFB leaders and are making their own way.
It might just save this movement.

http://www.ideaday.net

Don't think much of the web site -- claims to want to help "church leaders move further faster". 

Sorry to be so old school - but whatever happened to worshiping God and obeying Him and leaving the results and timing in His hands?

What about verses from Proverbs about "meddle not with them that are given to change"?

I note that they haven't posted an article since Jan 2017, so the web site doesn't seem to be moving very fast.

 

[Twisted]

I note that they haven't posted an article since Jan 2017, so the web site doesn't seem to be moving very fast.

They're working on another website/conference/movement to help fix that.

 

[Walt]

The younger generation are trying to make the IFB's go "Mainstream" with ccm music/coffe shops/self help books from false teachers Carl Lentz and Steven Furtick and endorse satellite campuses like Craig Groeschel. The foundation laid b the great Jack Hyles and his contemporaries Jack Trieber/Tony Hutson/Larry Brown are now getting blotted out but thankfully there are some youngster who are remaining loyal like Caleb Garraway.

These "great" men you name are the CAUSE of much of the trouble within the IFB. Jack Hyles was anything but "great" - in my opinion, he is to the IFB world what Billy Graham is to the conservative Southern Baptist world.  Jack Trieber comes across as very genial and grandfatherly, but... he is very much an autocrat ("I don't want excuses; I want results"), and taught his members that "the pastor is my shepherd; I shall not want".  I've only heard Tony Hutson talk 3-4 times. I remember one good message, and the others were basically IFB storytime.  Larry  Brown I haven't heard - is this the guy who smashes up TVs? 

I say "no thanks" to that crowd - I want an IFB preacher who preaches what the WORD of God says, instead of using some verse from the Bible to launch into a diatribe of his personal opinions.

It seems to me that the IFB has committed the sin of idolizing certain men.

 

[Walt]

There is a growing number of (mostly) younger IFB pastors and churches that have resisted the influence and traditions of past IFB leaders and are making their own way.
It might just save this movement.

http://www.ideaday.net

Am I missing something? Are the contributors/owners of ideaday self-proclaimed fundamentalists?

They are IFB Pastors. They are doctrinally sound yet in their methodology they 'compromise' and draw the displeasure of the old paths IFB's.

Funny thing... they do not use the words "fundamental," "fundamentalist" or "fundamentalism" on their website, anywhere.

I think these new fundamentalists are avoiding the term... this is not the only example. Some of my alma mater, brethren, are doing the same. My fundamentalist friends avoid the term. Why? Because they don't want the stigma of the former personalities. Neither do they do a good job framing the sine-qua-non of fundamentalism. If I were to become the new face of fundamentalism, I wouldn't avoid the term... because then you become a "nothing burger."

You're right. Paul Chappell doesn't use the term fundamentalist anymore. He uses the terms: unaffiliated conservative Baptists.  You're wrong, it's not because they don't want the stigma of the former personalities. They don't want the stigma of who the media is portraying as fundamentalists... (example: ISIS, Warren Jeffs)

So, what you're saying is that they are letting the media decide for them what they will call themselves.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

I note that they haven't posted an article since Jan 2017, so the web site doesn't seem to be moving very fast.

They're working on another website/conference/movement to help fix that.

http://www.dixiechicks.com/home-1

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

The great Jack Hyles would turn over in his grave if he knew about these millennials. Only one he would like would be the famous Caleb Garraway for sticking to the fundamentals and not conforming to the liberals and CCM music.

Jack Hyles was the "millennial" of his generation as well. He was called out for his "compromise" of starting this new ministry "idea" called the Bus Ministry where he would go out into Chicago and reach out to black kids.  He was called liberal by other pastors including his own church members at the time.

 

[TheRealJonStewart]

Define historical tenets. I would say they are seeking to move away from the extra biblical 'doctrines' that define an old path fundamentalist. As to what they wish to be or do, I confess I don't know. I am merely an interested observer.

There were core beliefs that defined fundamentalism, initially.
Here is a picture from one of their publications:

Later, a list of thirteen essential statements popped up to further define the movement.

Two sine-qua-non were always obvious: separation (individual and ecclesiastical) and a militant defense of the gospel.

Unfortunately, the militancy defense ended up becoming a capricious system established by the rise of Bible Colleges and expounded on by the Hyles group. Militancy moved into hair length, clothes, music and version.

So, if there is to be a RESTORATION of proper fundamentalism, we would at least see the above pillars expounded upon (without respect to denominational name).

I consider myself a historical fundamentalist. I reject the extra-biblical, social aspects of fundamentalism.

This is stupid. You can't compare Christianity -> "Bible is not infallible" to Christianity -> using CCM music. One is a doctrinal issue, the other is preference.

 

[FSSL]

This is stupid. You can't compare Christianity -> "Bible is not infallible" to Christianity -> using CCM music. One is a doctrinal issue, the other is preference.

Right on! Which is why I reject the fundamentalism commonly found in the Bible Colleges of the 1980s and beyond