Read Part 1.

A Memoir by Pastor Joel Tetreau

Discomfort with Movements on the "Right" and "Left"

Historically speaking, all churches that are orthodox in their faith and militant about the gospel are in a sense fundamentalist churches. Fundamentalism has been right about many important things over the years. In its struggle with liberalism, it was right about a pure gospel. In its struggle with New Evangelicalism, it was right about the clear gospel. SVBC has an apreciation for its separatist heritage. From the very beginning we have been a bit different than your typical fundamental church. We are excited about historic Fundamentalism as an idea; however, we have not been nor continue to be as equally excited about Fundamentalism as a movement.

Too much modern-day Fundamentalism is riddled with leadership abuse, ecclesiastical politics, schisms over nonessentials, and the problem of equating men's standards with the doctrines of God. So in a sense we find ourselves between two worlds. On the one hand we are uncomfortable with the main of Evangelicalism (especially New Evangelicalism) with its ecumenicalism and adoption of the world. On the other hand, we are uncomfortable with much of the fundamentalist movement and its propensity toward self-righteousness.   read more»

^{Editor's Note: This article is reprinted with permission from Doug Kutilek's free newsletter "As I See It," a monthly electronic magazine, and appears here with some editing. AISI is sent free to all who request it by writing to the editor at dkutilek@juno.com.}

One of the most often-quoted devotional comments in Matthew Henry’s (1662-1714) famous commentary on the Bible is his remarks regarding the creation of the first woman from the side of the first man (Genesis 2:21-22)--

[T]he woman was made of a rib out of the side of Adam; not made out of his head to rule over him, nor out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved. [italics in original]

Henry’s observation was picked up by later commentators, among them John Gill (1697-1771), who, at Genesis 2:22, reproduces much of Henry’s phrasing:

It is commonly observed, and pertinently enough, that the woman was not made from the superior part of man, that she might not be thought to be above him, and have power over him; nor from any inferior part, as being below him, and to trampled on by him; but out of his side, and from one of his ribs, that she might appear equal to him; and from a part near his heart, and under his arms, to show that she should be affectionately loved by him; and always under his care and protection.   read more»

See "Note to the Readers."

Regarding Limited Participation

Whereas the Scripture admonishes believers generally to maintain fellowship with one another in the love of Christ and in the bond of peace,

And whereas the Scripture also commands believers, individually and collectively, to separate themselves from professing believers who persist in disobedience to the clear teachings of the Word of God,

And whereas Christian individuals and ministries that otherwise enjoy fellowship with one another in the Lord may still disagree over sincerely held convictions, over questions of ministry philosophy, and over judgment as to the prudence of various courses of action,

And whereas such disagreements may be significant and may limit the degree to which individuals and ministries may participate together in various aspects of the work of the ministry,

And whereas the Bible establishes the pattern of respect for the soul liberty and responsibility of individuals and local churches as to matters not clearly determined by Scripture,

Now, therefore, the FBFI urges God’s people:

To respect the liberty of Christian individuals and ministries to limit their participation in projects or activities provided that the particular exercise of this liberty does not violate Scripture;   read more»

Editor's Note: This article accompanies FBFI Resolution 09-03 and is reprinted with permission from the May/June issue of FrontLine magazine.

Is There A Difference?

Introduction

Pastor Robert Corso is facing a hard decision. Another Bible-believing pastor in his town has asked him to participate in a joint youth outreach emphasis. The difficulty is that Pastor Corso has some significant differences with the other church in terms of ministry philosophy and the practice of youth ministry. Although he does not wish to throw stones, he does not feel comfortable participating in the event. Pastor Corso is sure that some of his church members believe that he should publicly separate from the other church. Other members would see nothing wrong with participating, given that the gospel is more important than a church's "parochial interests."

Although there are times when a church must unequivocally separate itself from individuals and ministries, many times a pastor is faced with a situation like the one above. He does not believe that he has clear enough Scriptural warrant to publicly declare another ministry or minister to be "in sin," but he does not think it prudent to involve himself too closely with that ministry or a particular project. The question is whether he has the leeway to limit his participation without officially separating from the other ministry. Are there such things as prudential limits on association that are different in nature from Biblical separation?   read more»

See "Note to the Readers."

Regarding Fundamentalism and Culture

Whereas true believers have always functioned actively within the culture in which they find themselves,

And whereas Jesus Christ clearly indicated the true believers must live in the world but not of it,

And whereas believers have been directed by God not to be lovers of the worldly system that surrounds them or to revisit the past sinful lifestyles from which they were saved,

And whereas Scripture clearly defines the thoughts, values and behaviors associated with those lifestyles,

And whereas sins previously not named among believers such as the use of alcohol as a beverage, premarital sex, adultery, homosexuality, profanity, vulgarity, immodesty, and much more are now not only viewed unashamedly by believers as entertainment but also practiced without shame among those who name Christ,

And whereas present-day Fundamentalism has been dismissed as a product of the culture,   read more»

Editor's Note: This article accompanies FBFI Resolution 09-02 and is reprinted with permission from the May/June 2009 issue of FrontLine magazine.

One criticism leveled against Fundamentalists is their refusal to engage the culture. Sociologist Alan Wolfe writes, “When believers refuse to engage the culture, their opponents dismiss them as fanatics, frustrated people rendered insecure by the dilemmas and opportunities of modernity." ¹ Implicit in this complaint is resentment toward Fundamentalists for being unsociable: they are generally an intolerant people who do not mix well with their culture. Interestingly, this same complaint was directed against first-century believers by Roman hedonists.

It is true that historically Fundamentalists have refused to tolerate, let alone participate in behavior that exalts sensual pleasure and denigrates Christian values. The criticism is perennial, and understandably so, since sincere Christians have taken seriously the Biblical admonition to love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. They love and are loved by God, whose values are theirs and whose commands they seek to obey. And those living for the world have hated them for it.   read more»

Read Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.

This Man

Jesus told a crowd of unbelievers, “The bread that I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” The crowd responded with incredulity. They asked, “How is this man able to give us his flesh to eat?”

In context, the crowd would have understood the reference to Jesus’ flesh as a metaphor. From the beginning of His argument with the multitude, Jesus had used the eating of bread to symbolize belief in Him. He repeatedly challenged the crowd with significant claims. He claimed to be the bread that came down from heaven. He claimed to have authority to raise up the dead. He claimed to be sent from God, and He applied a Messianic title to Himself. Jesus insisted that anyone who believed on Him would be given eternal life.

The only element that Jesus now added to these claims was that His flesh or body would be the bread that He would give for the life of the world. In other words, Jesus averred that He was not merely a spiritual, divine savior, but also a very human, incarnate one. His body or flesh—His humanity—would be absolutely essential to our salvation.

If the crowd was following Jesus’ metaphor of eating as believing, then they should have understood this claim. They were supposed to believe on Jesus as one who would give His body as a sacrifice for their sins. Nevertheless, understanding the metaphor was no guarantee that they would necessarily accept Jesus’ claims.

In fact, they did not believe. Instead, they asked, “How is this man able to give us his flesh to eat?” The thrust of this question was consistent with other questions that the crowd had asked. They simply could not accept the notion that “this man,” Jesus, could actually deliver what He claimed to offer.   read more»

Note to the Readers:

Resolutions are applications of the core values of the FBFI at a particular moment in time.  They are voted upon by the executive board of the FBFI at its winter board meeting in February of each year.  The accompanying articles are intended to be support and/or further explanation for the resolutions.  They are not voted upon by the executive board.

All of our resolutions are available for perusal at the FBFI website.  Some of the resolutions from years past do not reflect the positions of the board members today but they do remain available as a historical record of the FBFI at a particular moment in time.

The key documents for the FBFI are the doctrinal statement and core values.  Those core values are reflected in the 2008 list of resolutions.

—Kevin Schaal   read more»

Editor's Note: This article accompanies FBFI Resolution 09-01.

The word evangel means gospel. Therefore, to be evangelical is to be defined by the gospel. At minimum, those who claim to be Evangelicals should have a very clear idea of what the gospel is.

Within today’s Evangelicalism, however, the content of the gospel is the subject of significant disagreement. Many contemporary Evangelicals are attempting to create an understanding of the gospel that is much more inclusive than the message of personal salvation. While these Evangelicals do not always deny a personal gospel (and some are fervently committed to it), they think that the gospel must also deal with other issues, including problems of a psychological, social, and environmental nature. What they proclaim is neither simply a personal gospel nor a social gospel. It is a both/and gospel.

The basic argument for the both/and gospel is that sin has done more than to disrupt our personal relationship with God. It has disrupted the inner integrity of each individual, resulting in the disintegration of emotional wholeness. It has disrupted the relationship between humans, resulting in oppression and exploitation. It has disrupted our relationship to the created order, resulting in the ruination of nature through human abuse. According to proponents of the both/and gospel, a meaningful gospel must address each of these issues directly.   read more»

Editor's Note: This article is reprinted by permission from Getting Somewhere.

Hi, I'm Brent. And I am a recovering legalist. I'm looking for a support group for people like me.

I grew up in a Christian home, had parents who loved me and loved God. I went to church every Sunday, learned all the stories, gave my offerings—even went off to a Christian college. And I loved God—and I still do. But I had a problem— legalism. I didn't know it was a problem, at least not for a long time.

I was addicted to "the list." The list was made up of all the things that you were supposed to do and not supposed to do if you wanted to keep God happy with you. Most of the things on the list were good things—some of them even came right out of the Bible. But some of them didn't. They were passed along to me from several sources, but mostly from the traditions of the church. Since I am not much of a rebel by nature, I had no problem with keeping the list. The problem was what the list did to my Christianity. It became way too much about performance, and not enough about reality. And "spirituality" became more of an issue of conformity than obedience.

And the list led to "the line." The line was somewhere on the list. When a person kept enough of the list to make it to the line, he could feel good about himself, and about his supposed relationship with God. By measuring up to the line, a person could feel like he was good with God. And he could also feel like he was better than others. Think of it as spiritual arrogance.   read more»