a testimony of "exit"

The following is an interview with a good friend and fellow congregant with me. After becoming a believer he joined an Independent Fundamentalist Baptist church in Idaho. Both he and another member of this church left to come and attend Oregon Theological Seminary. I asked him to share his experiences with the leadership and belief system of this denomination.

Q: Are IFB congregants permitted to join another para-church organization with the intent to implement their own doctrinal distinctives?

IFBs believe in the cohesiveness of the church. To split a christian organization is contrary to their belief. I do not think it is likely that they would think to join some other organization just to split it apart.

Q: What opinion do IFBs have of other congregations and their teachings? Do they believe they are the only churches who have the truth?

To some level or another others are heretics. They don't believe that they are the only church in the city teaching the truth, but they do believe they are the only ones teaching the full truth. Other conservative Christian churches may have begun with biblical truths but through association with the world, their doctrines have become corrupted.

Southern Baptist churches are an example of churches who have compromised God's truth. They are set up so that their convention (SBC) runs the churches. Because they are not independent, therefore they are considered the "whore" described in Revelation 17:1. They listen to the spirit of the world instead of remaining loyal to Christ alone.

The IFB churches, when they think of approvable true New Testament churches, speak of "the church in this city."

There is one church for one city, although in some cases larger towns may break up in branches, being geographically-organized. This comes from the scriptures where the epistles were written "to the church at" Rome, Galatia, etc. The model in scripture is one singular church in one singular locale or region.

Q: What other beliefs make IFB churches distinct?

IFBs stick to the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible mostly. They consider it another breath of God, the only inspired version of the Bible. When they observe other Christians such as [our own CBA church] also teach from the New International Version, they would say that our church is lost and misguided.

There are some IFBs who do not believe in the KJV in this way. Some believe it is fine to use the NASB. Maybe there are a few who will use the NKJV, but according to them there are some errors in those.

Q: Have you ever heard of the "right-pastor" doctrine? Did the IFB churches you witnessed believe in one pastor for life?

The "one pastor for life" practice is extreme. Most IFB pastors don't have a problem with a pastor leaving to serve at another congregation. However, they are hesitant to search for a pastor for themselves. Typically what happens is a pastor will himself appoint someone before he leaves.

Q: Why did you leave this IFB church?

[He discussed the particular situation of his church at that time when he attended. Many of the details are not relevant and not edifying. What remains are a few details.]

We were aware of litigation against the church to provide that homosexuals may hold paid positions in the church. Legal counsel sent a recommendation that all churches rewrite their constitutions to protect them from lawsuits. At that time, our pastor decided that everything else in the constitution was up for rewriting, and made some changes. He researched other constitutions from other places and pulled out a few new features that he wanted to implement. All of these new ideas for church organization came from the constitutions of much larger IFB congregations. The pastor did not suggest these changes, but instead claimed these things would protect their church. It actually gave him sole authority over everything for the church. Singular, sole authority. Technically, the role of leading the church had been left to elders, plural. But larger IFB churches do not have a plural elders rule. Usually in IFB constitutions, one elder, is the rule. The only reason why examples of more elders can be found is because the head pastor wants help making decisions.

Q: What was the nature of your concerns for your church?

Mostly I had theological concerns, not church organizational concerns. As time went on, more and more I became concerned with the abuse of leadership and centralization of power. But in the beginning, the pastor would always say about his teachings, "If I preach from the pulpit, and from the scriptures, and what I say does not line up with scripture, you should talk to me about it." That was his method for checks and balances on teaching. Technically it's up to him with the burden of proof to show he is correct. I wanted to discuss the Greek with him, but I needed more education with the language, so I could never make a convincing case.

A couple of weeks after the pastor announced his changes, that new constitution was put into place. The deacons all wrote it up, assured it was biblically correct, but really it was more a pastor with personal aspirations for supreme control. Within a couple of weeks of its implementation, he let go a part-time associate pastor. The reasons didn't jive with what he was saying, and there were too many conflicting things going on there. While another deacon was on vacation a whole lot of other changes were made and when he returned, he was asked to leave quietly.

I had been teaching an adult Sunday school class. After one Sunday, he made an announcement: come for a teachers' meeting. He said to us, "From now on, scripture says you have to wear a three piece suit (as a man)." I told him I couldn't do that because of my occupation and time constraints. His response was, "Then you shouldn't be teaching."

We later had a discussion about deacons and the constitution. I essentially said to him that we're supposed to do these things in love. But instead you've done it in a way that is brash and nonchalant, with unrighteous authority. He got pretty belligerent about my opinions.

I left the church on my own, but afterward he told the church not to have fellowship with me and my family. He said about us to the entire church that we had "broken fellowship with the true faith."

The pastor said that not only of us, but everyone else who was concerned and had ended up leaving. The pastor told the congregation that "these people have broken fellowship with our chuches. Do not have fellowship with them anymore." Basically, we were shuned in a small town. If someone saw us, they were told "don't say hi but go the other direction, and do not have this list of people in your house." In a split second, we lost all our friends at the church.

Q: Where did you go after you left?

We left and I became a part of the construction and leadership of a new church in Idaho for three years. All of the people who worked on creating this church came with baggage from other churches. They knew they needed to make some serious changes in the way we prioritize our Christian life. It's first and foremost about a relationship with Christ, not about religion. Christians should be forgiving one another, just as God does us. Relationship is key. At that time in that area, this was a novel concept. We believed that if we gave the people solid biblical teaching, combined with putting relationships with people, community, and God first, membership growth will come as a result. Sunday school was our main reason for growth. As of right now this church I helped seed has already grown so large they have needed to reconstruct it for more space.

During those three years I was still looking for a way to learn the Greek language. Every seminary school has a language program, but 99% of seminaries teach only two semester courses each for Greek and Hebrew. After taking these classes, it is still unlikely you can sit down and read the texts in their original language.

Oregon Theological Seminary was the exception. Instead of two semesters, they had an incredible two year course series for Greek, and two year course series on Hebrew. At the end of these two years, I would actually be able to read the words and have 90% comprehension of what I read.

Q: So you came to Oregon for the teaching. When you arrived at our church, did it feel any different from your former IFB church?

OH yeah, we felt the difference in grace. The first person we met was [our former friend from our IFB church]. He wanted to take us to lunch. The church body took us underneath their wing, instead of leaving us sitting out in the cold.

It didn't take long after I left my IFB church that I started to realize that the way I practiced my faith was unbalanced. Back then being a Christian was more about liturgies of the church itself, than the relationships. Our faith was rote, and we wore it like a mask and then acted differently when we were someplace outside of church.

Being an independent church is not in and of itself, bad. But the question then becomes, if you aren't dependent on outside contribution, you are still dependent on something to tell you what is right and what is wrong. They are fundamental in understanding scripture. Their point is that Christians should know the basics. Everything builds on those things, and so they want to make sure the fundamentals are right.

Being independent actually makes them unhealthy. They aren't really independent, but even more dependent! All the people willing to stand up and disagree on errors in relationship and in scripture, are slowly taken out. Their place in the church is slowly removed so that they cannot speak and cannot have power. It is akin to Russia in the Cold War era with their prisoners. Whoever spoke against leadership were shipped to a remote colony.

When we're only accountable to ourselves, we set up ourselves as god. Independence means they are not willing to let you hold them accountable, even if the church comes to them. If they just refuse to listen, then let it be between that person and God. You should let them go.