If you look at a picture of the attendees of a professional baseball game during the 1940s, you see the crowd filled with men in suits and ties. I don’t know if they called them fans then, but were they legalists? Anyone who would wear a suit and tie to a baseball game must be a legalist. That’s what I’ve heard about men today who wear that to church. They’re legalists.
On the other hand, if someone now wears skinny jeans and a t-shirt while he preaches, that, my friends, is, what I’ve been told, someone who understands the grace of God. He’s also recovering from fundamentalism. Maybe you didn’t think it was that simple, but that’s how men, who refer to themselves as “recovering fundamentalists,” do characterize those who wear a suit, shirt, and tie, when they preach the Word of God behind the pulpit.
Men who wore suits to ball games in the 1940s had their reasons. They didn’t wear suits everywhere they went and doing anything they did. Men for similar reasons in the 1950s wore suits when they traveled on an airplane or other kinds of public transportation. In many instances still today, men will wear a suit to a wedding or a funeral. This was a way to show respect in a culture that put a premium still on showing respect.
Some still consider events and places sacred. You’ve heard the question, “Is nothing sacred any more?” Events and places once treated sacred are not any more. A culture where little is sacred surrenders its means, its symbols and expressions, for treating anything sacred. It blurs
the distinctions between the sacred and the profane.
More than ever today being comfortable and casual is more important in priority than respect and sacredness. Men come as they are. In 1 Corinthians 13:5, Paul teaches that love does not behave itself unseemly. Something unseemly is unfitting of the occasion, like having bad manners. If something can be unseemly, it can obviously also be seemly.
Personal comfort is about yourself. “You do you.” Respect, which relates to something else besides you, is less important, of lesser value, than you. Love is fruit of the Spirit. Love seeketh not its own. That’s God and not you. Many, if not most, worship the idol of “you.”
IFB Off-Ramp
In
a very recent youtube video entitled “The IFB Off-Ramp,” Mark Ward interviewed, whom he identified as one of the “recovering fundamentalists” (RF), whom I don’t know. His interviewee had debated a
Ruckmanite IFB over “KJV Onlyism,” also abbreviated KJVO. Behind the RF in the interview was a piece of modern artwork with a row of varied abstract headstocks of guitars, promoting also a kind of modern music.
The RF says he wants to help and encourage men to be scriptural. The commonality between Ward and the RF was replacing the King James Version with a modern version. In the comment section, John Brock, perhaps the former academic dean of Maranatha Baptist University or a close relative, wrote:
Mark, good vid. I appreciate your spirit and the work you do. I would love to see Nathan’s organization change its name to something less demeaning to the IFB faithful. “Recovering” is commonly used for sinful vices and applying the term to Bible believing Christians/churches is more apropos to the enemies of the cross. Your ministry is special and done so well. I appreciate the sensitivity that you have. The average believers in fundamental Baptist churches are sincere brethren and demeaning them with broad strokes is unhelpful and can be unloving. I also would tend to respect the common dress expectations of a church (when invited as a speaker) rather than to parade differences on things of lesser significance. Keep placing the emphasis on lovingly, respectfully but courageously affirming the truth regarding our precious Book.
Mark Ward answered also in public:
I totally understand where you’re coming from. I think I’ve made my peace with the name, because as an internet writer (blogs and YouTube) I have come—a bit reluctantly—to realize that some amount of “clickbait” in one’s headlines is part of the game. I say some amount because me and my old editor at the Logos Blog agreed we would never promise something that didn’t come true. But we knew we were fighting for eyeballs. You can see that in my video title here: “The IFB Off-Ramp.” That’s probably a bit more attention-getting that strictly necessary.
Brock presented at least two criticisms: (1) Change the name of RF because of wrong aspects especially about the meaning of “recovering” and how it demeans independent Baptists, and (2) respect the common dress expectations of a church.
Ward dealt only with argument one. He justified to Brock the titles Recovering Fundamentalist (RF) and IFB Off-Ramp because they were (1) clickbait, (2) part of the game, and (3) fighting for eyeballs. You get a bigger crowd if you use the methodology.
Mark Ward didn’t answer either of Brocks points. He essentially said that you’ve got to do certain means and methods to reach a certain end. The end justifies the means. Some might be familiar with this as pragmatism.
Pragmatism?
Do modern version advocates, most often critical text proponents, follow scripture as the basis for what they do? Both Ward and the RF say that’s what it is. I don’t hear anything scriptural in particular coming from either of them in the interview, except for Ward’s brief reference to 1 Corinthians 14:9 and his intelligibility argument. I’m not going to address that again here.
From my observation and many others’, IFB has been steeped in pragmatism. They’ve used gimmicks or carnal means to attract crowds. They’ve been doing that for decades, because it was a good way to get eyeballs. It is proverbial “clickbait” and “playing the game.”
This IFB pragmatism also either followed, led to, or paralleled a superficial, 1-2-3 pray-with-me “gospel” for numbers. The two feed off each other. You can’t keep a crowd attracted by superficial means with an in depth presentation. It also must carry with it certain characteristics fitting of the spirit of this age.
When almost the entire infrastructure and happenings around an apparently serious dealing with scripture is modernistic, worldly, compromising, and casual, that affects the message. As someone famously wrote: the medium is the message. All of the surrounding and environment and context affect the understanding. It’s like blowing an uncertain trumpet. The message will lose its intelligibility. This all relates to Christian worldview.
What does it mean to recover from this brand of fundamentalism? Does it mean going to more that is superficial, like the modern art, pop music, and casual and worldly dress? Many adherents to evangelicalism want a church with a modern version. It’s a prerequisite that goes along with all the other pragmatism that is used to get eyeballs. Most everyone in the theater seating doesn’t care what the underlying text is.
Mark Ward is willing to associate and fellowship with Recovering Fundamentalists. The real deal breaker would be if they used only the King James Version. On the other hand, if someone preaches a true gospel, evangelizes in a scriptural way, and has a reverent assembly with robust expository preaching, even using the original languages, but it uses only the King James Version, that divides Mark Ward. The RF are Mark Ward’s bedfellows. These are his people.
Agree completely, very revealing quote of Ward. Christ says, “For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.”
He also says that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. I can’t imagine being asked to explain this.
It’s true.
I asked the recovering people if they would debate preservation with me. They were not willing to do it. Neither is Dr. Ward. Too bad.
I see this as the strategy. Debate Ruckmanites and then equivocate to everyone or everything else. Their ideas would be exposed when debating someone who takes a scriptural position.
The two sides, as you know, Ruckman and critical text, neither believe in the scriptural or historical doctrine of preservation. Both are restorationists, thinking scripture was lost.
I think the word I wanted was that they conflate Ruckmanism into all of KJVO, even though they know and have said that’s not true. If you defeat a Ruckmanite in a debate, then you have defeated KJVO.
“From my observation and many others’, IFB has been steeped in pragmatism. They’ve used gimmicks or carnal means to attract crowds.” A big hearty AMEN to that exposure of the disgusting side of much of Independent Baptist Fundamentalism. (I use the word “disgusting” because of some specific incidents that come to mind.)
The guy in Ward’s video, Nathan Cravatt, debated Mitch Canupp last August (2021) at Bible Missionary Baptist Church, Rockwell, North Carolina. I watched it online. Nothing exceptional, imo.
Hi Robert,
Someone sent me the link to the video of the debate. I don’t agree with either side, so I didn’t watch it. Thanks for coming by.
Pastor Brandenburg, thank you for your writing. It’s both edifying and a blessing to read. I agree with your equivocation assessment in your comment to KJB1611. In any dealings I’ve had with the RF audience that is very often the case. They want errors made by individual men, or churches, applied to all churches trying to know and practice the truth according to God’s word. Or they make composition errors, where they dismiss the whole for a part. In my limited experience they want something other than what the Bible plainly teaches, they seem to want modernism and all its sensual appeal. When pressed on anything they suddenly can’t “know what is being said” in the scripture, because they “can’t read the original languages.” Yet they want to tell Christians what isn’t true based (if they’re being consistent), on their own imperfect interpretation of God’s word.
Thanks Benjamin, interesting comment. I agree with it all. In the end, we’re all judged by God by what He said. For people using modern versions and their apparent superior intelligibility, they’re missing a lot.