The Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International Is Alive and Well

You should be alright. It could be worse. Show up and claim to be a science professor at a state university! That gets interesting… Prepare to be ignored if you do.

[Mike Harding]

Our mission is to proclaim and defend the historic, biblical, Baptist fundamentals.

Our core values are loyalty to God and His Word, reverent God-centered worship, Great commission obedience, edifying fellowship, biblically balanced discernment, holiness in life and ministry, a close personal walk with God, personal and ecclesiastical separation.

Amen.

The music challenges and conundrums are real, but we need a persistent reminder to value “reverent, God-centered worship.” It continues to be an important conversation, avoiding both overly simplistic legalism and laissex faire license at the same time. I am thankful that some within the FBFI are willing to continue reminding our consciences about this. Ongoing, gracious, thoughtful interaction on this point is not just still important. I would propose that it has become more important than before. I agree with Mike on this.

Regarding Fundamental as a label, I personally think there is a difference between Fundamental or Fundamentals on one hand and Fundamentalism or Fundamentalist on the other. In the athletic world, for instance, fundamentals are a useful word, commonly employed without negative, pejorative connotations. We speak, for instance, of basketball fundamentals. No problems there. So to speak of a church or Christian organization that embraces “fundamentals of the faith,” etc. seems equally wholesome.

However, when you add ism or ist to the word, as a label in modern usage, it seems to inject an element of association with very bad, repulsive groups and ideas, such as radical Islam, militias, etc. If that is how the general public views this word, then it is easy to argue that avoiding the word fundamentalism and fundamentalist is a wise thing to do, while continuing to speak of embracing the fundamentals of the Christian faith, and so forth.

That’s my two cents, which is probably worth no more than a penny, if even that :D

[Mike Harding]

The tone and sarcasm, however, I could do without.

Agreed.

The disagreement concerning music and alcohol is more than “cultural fundamentalism”. Some Christians believe they are mature by dismissing concerns about music and alcohol as “cultural” influence, while perhaps not realizing that their dismissal is also due to cultural influence. I suspect that these 2 issues, along with others, will continue to divide conservative Christians, which I find astounding.

….that we are discussing music, alcohol, and such in the way that we do. It is as if Psalms 149 and 150, along with the second chapter of John, among other passages, have disappeared from the Bibles of cultural fundamentalists.

Given that most of the arguments I’ve read parallel the nonsense (to put it very politely) of Robert Teachout and Bill Gothard, suffice it to say that the cultural fundamentalists are going to need to seriously improve their arguments to persuade me that their position derives from Scripture and not Victorian/Edwardian culture. Get rid of the guilt by association, get rid of the definitions of convenience like Teachout’s “two wines” theory, and get rid of absurd arguments like “offbeat music excites the animal passions.”

There are great reasons not to drink, especially if you’re from a family or culture of alcoholics, and there are great reasons to reject certain songs as un-Scriptural. However, the blanket prohibitions really come far more from the Victorian/Edwardian age than they do from the pages of Scripture. Hence “cultural fundamentalism.”

first, you don’t seem to understand at all the subject matter

second, whether your complaint is rooted in reality or not, it has nothing to do with the subject of this thread

third, your belligerent tone indicates that your mind is closed and discussion would be fruitless

So pick on someone else for your fight. I’m not interested.

^
^
​^

What Don said.

As for this:

What say you Don does the FBFI see PTSD as mental illness or based on lack of faith ie sin Don

I’ve beaten the ‘FBFI horse’ around a lot on SharperIron, but this statement is not at all what the FBFI teaches on PTSD. And since the FBFI is comprised of individuals, not churches, I’m not sure that the FBFI can or would take a position like this.

Nice try, though.

I’m one of the senior Army Chaplains endorsed by the FBFI and am grateful for their ongoing support. Let me say thanks for Pastor Harding’s good comments above concerning the FBFI’s endorsement of over three dozen men into the chaplaincy.

Jay is right above, the FBFI doesn’t mandate any party-line view of counseling-treatment or have a written position statement RE guidance to chaplains on PTSD treatment. We know we have FBF support as we counsel with compassion on a case-by-case basis.

And I can tell you this: every FBFI chaplain I know works closely with the broad medical community to care and treat Soldiers suffering from PTS symptoms. PTSD per se is a diagnosis only medical doctors can make, typically from our behavioral health professionals. The chaplains on the “front lines” dealing with PTSD Soldiers are assigned to our hospitals or “WTBs” Warrior Transition Battalions. They’re doing a great job.

I don’t know anyone, FBFI or BJU whatever, who teaches bona fide PTSD is “based” purely on sin, but one can respond in a sinful manner to PTS symptoms (anger, bitterness, resentment). I’m thankful for the testimony of many who fight the effects / symptoms of PTSD by God’s grace and for His glory thanks to the gospel. The behavioral health community cares with providing trained service dogs or behavior modification. I address the heart through the gospel and sanctification grace.

But Don is right. You were casting aspersions of which you do not know. Back on topic…

Chaplain Bullock