Talk:Independent Baptist

Merging Independent Fundamental Baptist Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was merge into Independent Baptist

• Support The Independent Fundamental Baptist article is poorly written, and would benefit from being part of this article. As written there is little difference between the two. Independent Baptist seems to be the better maintained and more used article. Mgroop 17:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support its the same subject. FGT2 06:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support I agree - although some info in the IFB is not accurate. Marcus Constantine 01:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cedarville University

I removed Cedarville University as it is not an Independent Baptist College. Cedarville was a GARBC College, however that organization is separating from Cedarville [1] [2] [3] [4] because of their close association with the Southern Baptist Convention [5] [6]. Mgroop 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No Sources?

Towards the bottom of the page, some controversial points are made without any references or sources. In fact, the whole article seems curiously devoid of any citations. Would people please try to better provide references and sources for their material from now on, particularly that which is likely to be controversial? --Jzyehoshua 03:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Clean Up

This page is in need of clean-up. However, before we go in and make some wholesale changes, I thought it best to voice my concerns here. First, the very nature of "Independent Baptist" makes it a difficult subject to quantify. The section on "Beliefs" just got marked for weasel words, because of its use of the word "tends too", etc. However, because each independent baptist church is in fact independent, we can't make blanket statements, because as soon as we do, somebody will say "My Church doesn't believe that." On the other hand, every independent Baptist Church would follow most of those beliefs mentioned. Since there is no spokesman for this, how do we give citations? Some follow Jack Hyles, some follow The Sword of the Lord, some follow Bob Jones University, some follow Pensacola Christian College, some follow Tennessee Temple University, some people hate everybody I just mentioned. So to cite The Sword of the Lord would be to discount the impact of TTU on Independent Baptists. To cite PCC would be to alienate BJU. To simply focus on what all these agree on would leave this a very small article indeed. Also, IMHO, The section "Current Developments", no citations, very controversial, and not very relevant to Independent Baptists as a whole. I suggest getting rid of it completely. Mgroop 13:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion is to find secondary sources that cover the topic as a whole and not rely on trying summarize primary sources. These secondary sources hopefully quantify the vagaries in a helpful way. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 18:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Two church links

I removed Hephzibah Baptist Church and Westboro Baptist Church from the page. Hephzibah is a Southern Baptist church, and thus does not belong here. Westboro claims to be a Primitive Baptist Church, and thus doesn't belong here. Also neither church is representative of Independent, Southern, or Primitive Baptists, and as such (IMHO) shouldn't even be mentioned. Mgroop 12:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree Deigo 16:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT

ifbreformer and others, please see wp:not before you start COMPLETELY rewriting this page without any explanation as to why. Wikipedia is not about advocacy. Your intent may not be vandalism, but it's starting to look that way. Please respond or this article may need to be reverted or protected. BURNyA 16:13, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Just trying to give fair representation of IFBs

I realize the WP is not for advocasy or soap boxes. Its not a blog - totally understand that. But it also needs to be factually correct and give examples of things to be accurate. This was first contribution of I made to WP and it was not intended as vandalism. I wrote a bit too much on the Current events section and I edited that yesterday down to a small portion. I removed the controversial section about sex scandals and such as there was no citation given for any of these controversial statements and I thought it was fair to remove until someone adds citations. Whoever originally wrote this article really slanted it toward one side of IFBs(the far right IFBs) and gave no mention of more moderate IFBs. I was trying to balance that out by mentioning things like some IFBs are not KJV only and TR only and some IFBs use CCM music. My intent was to give a fair and balanced picture of IFBs.

Please list any statements that are on the article now from me that seem to violate the WP standards and I will be happy to discuss them with you. --Ifbreformer 19:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem (which has been an issue with this article for quite some time) is that Wikipedia is not supposed to present personal impressions, opinions, other forms of WP:POV, or "original research". That means that article content is supposed to be supported by source citations, particularly if that content is in any way contentious. In this article, the first paragraph seems to be generally agreed to be true, but it is not supported by any reference citations. The History section also appears to be uncontentious, but it is also unsourced. The list of Colleges and institutes cites many sources (i.e., the websites for the schools), although not all of the schools clearly identify themselves as IB or IFB. Those three elements of the article need better sourcing, but they are the best-supported parts. Beyond those three elements, the article is seriously lacking in source citations. The fact that many different editors stop by and change article contents indicates that the content cannot be assumed to be generally agreed upon by knowledgable people. Statements like the following examples are particularly problematic because they positively scream out "POV!":

Most recently, the rise of Calvinism in what had been a predominantly Dispensationalist and semi-Arminian religious movement has prompted some IFB church members to resort to denominations such as the Southern Baptist Convention for a more stable church environment - although many Southern Baptist Churches have become Calvinistic as well.

In the last 20 years though, the use of the King James Version(King-James-Only Movement) and the use of Contemporary Christian music in worship services have become the two most divisive issues for the modern IFB Movement with the move toward Calvinistic teachings running a distant third.

--orlady 20:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been in IFB Churches most of my life(and still attend one now) so would consider myself to be somewhat of expert on them. I have studied our history as well and have a website with that information as well. I agree citations are important and I will look into getting more for the this article. I know proffessors from IFB colleges that I have mentioned along with several IFB Pastors across the country. Just because a school does not clearly identify itself as IFB does not mean it is not. Many of these IFB schools, while having the majority of their students be IFB, don't want to scare off other Baptists.

Any IFB who is has been in the movement for some number of years will read what I have added and consider it to be accurate and not simply POV. I did not write the first line about Calvinism and the Southern Baptists but that probably is accurate. Calvinism is on the rise in IFB churches and many IFBs can attest to this be accurate. The KJV and CCM issues are especially divisive as I have seen it first hand in many IFB churches.

Again I will see to track down some web articles that we can use as citations. But I believe the IFB article to be a generally accurate picture of what various IFBs think.

Let me know what you think. --Ifbreformer 21:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal knowledge and perceptions are not an appropriate basis for an encyclopedia article. Read Wikipedia:No original research, particularly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:or#Citing_oneself --orlady 21:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are talking about now - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" - although its not always possible to verifiy things that true - I understand that. I will look for articles and books to substantiate the things mentioned on this article. Unfortunately, even many things that are published by respected sources often have a slant or POV in them - but if citation is the rule, then thats the rule. I will get on this. --Ifbreformer 22:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ifbreformer, an earlier comment was made that since IFB churches are all independant, making an all encompasing page describing IFB churches may be more of a chalange than it might seem. Since Still, you and I both know (I think we probably have a little bit in common from reading your above post) that much of what you say is accurate from personal experiences. Unfortunately IFB churches unlike SBC churches or PCA churches are a loosely defined group where things are similar due to a parallel heritage instead of being similar due to a common denominational network, covenant or confession. For this reason maybe it would be easier to define IFB churches in light of their common heritage or from a historical perspective instead of trying to define them outright. For instance there is much more concrete evidence for the affect John R Rice, The Sword of the Lord, J. Frank Norris, Fundamentalism or Bob Jones, Sr/Bob Jones University had on the IFB movement than there may be for saying that all IFB churches believe this way or that way. Another thing to think about when editing on IFB article is the difference between these churches. For instance, historically IFB churches that are aligned with BJU are different from churches aligning themselves with Baptist Bible College which are different from Churches aligning themselves with Tennessee Temple University which are different from churches identifying themselves with Hyles-Anderson College. All of these churches would identify themselves as IFB some would go as far as to say the others are not IFB and in many ways all of these churches are different. Yes, IFB churches is an article that deserves representation in Wikipedia, but it might take a the brains of someone a lot smarter than I am. In the mean time I can only give suggestions.Mortsey 22:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well spoken Mortsey, and I will try to the best of my ability to bring the article back into WP standards for inclusion. I have already found one good source(from a Seminary article very well written and cited) and I will find others. --Ifbreformer 22:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

IFBreformer, instead of adding links to the main section of the article, attach them as references, if you do not know how to do this contact me at my talk pageMortsey 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I will remember that for next time, and yes I just figured out how to make them references with ref tag --Ifbreformer 01:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Some others have done some good cleanup - its starting to look better and actually have citations! I think though it is missing a section on IFB church structure - although that may be redundant as it is a Baptist distinctive - what do you guys think? Should we add something about IFBs only having one Pastor and a deacon board?(of course I will find a citation if we do so) --Ifbreformer 02:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue of church structure may be difficult other than to simply state that there is not hierarchy that they answer to. Many IFB churches such as those who fall into the Hyles-Anderson school of church structure have a very strong pastor, others that tend to place more emphasis on the Elder/Deacon board with the head pastor in the lead (plurality of leadership) and still others tend to have a stronger congregational decisions making body. I am not sure how you would define church structure to make it balanced in all areas so that it speaks to all IFB churches. You might find yourself speaking in generalities. A different approach might be to illustrate how IFBs church polity differs from Brethren or from Presbyterians or Methodists.Mortsey 21:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Colleges and institutes

Is there really a point to listing the "Colleges and institutes" on these denomination entries? This list in particular is getting a bit long. BURNyA 20:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, there really is a point, at least for this list. The Independent Baptists are a de facto denomination that refuses to accept the label of "denomination" and has no denominational structure. The colleges and institutes that are supported by local churches, are attended by individual IBs, and are sources for theological and worship materials, seem to be about as close as the Independent Baptists get to having denominational institutions. Therefore, the list is an important element of the article, as it helps to define the Independent Baptists. The number of schools on the list does not seem particularly large. Furthermore, I think the list may be approaching completeness. --orlady 04:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I see. Because of a lack of centralization (unlike in the Roman Catholic Church or Southern Baptist Convention) the denomination is, in a way, defined by the schools? I get it. Thanks. BURNyA 19:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Outreach

Some Independent Baptist churches have dismayed moderate Baptists and other evangelical Christians by using outreach techniques that many American Christians consider tasteless and inappropriate for modern Western culture.[6][7] These techniques include distributing frightening religious tracts authored by conspiracy theorist Jack T. Chick[8] and marching in local parades with signs urging watchers to repent.[9] Critics say the aggressive techniques used by fundamentalist groups give Christians a bad name.[10] Not all Independent Baptist churches use these techniques.

Someone added the above to this article. I think that it should be removed. It doesn't seem NPOV to me. Deigo 11:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The above statements are factual and supported by appropriate links. The point is not to slam independent Baptists or to suggest that the movement is a cult. The point is that independent Baptists often use extreme methods of witnessing that are rejected by most evangelical churches. These techniques are one of several issues - along with the use modern Bible versions and the use of contemporary Christian music - that strain the relationship between fundamentalist Baptists and evangelical Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManicBrit (talk • contribs) 22:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

King James Bible debate

The section currently titled "King James Bible debate" is largely unsourced and has been tagged since May. The main point seems to be, per the intro sentence, "A number of English-speaking Independent Baptist churches and associated educational institutions support exclusive use of the King James Bible or other Bible translations based on the Textus Receptus (or Received Text)." The rest of the section notes that some hold the opposite view. But that discussion focuses primarily on the Textus Receptus, which is not entirely the same debate as the KJV only debate.

The section seems to be there to show that some (most?) Independent Baptist churches hold the KJV only view, or at least a TR only view, and implies that this is a defining characteristic of IBs. The alternative that "some" others disagree seems to modify the general proposition that most are KJV only. In any case, there is not a single source supporting the proposition that KJV only or TR only is a defining characteristic of IBs (though [the one source does not that many or most fundamentalists do, it is not clear this assertion, which is not the thesis of the article, is limited to IBs). The only source argues that the KJV only or TR only position is wrong. (William W. Combs,Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary Journal)

Without RSs, there is no way to verify whether this KJ only view is a defining characteristic of IBs, or even a view held by an appreciable number. Without that, even if true that some hold that view (and it must be true that at least some hold the view) it is almost impossible to evaluate the section for WP:UNDUE purposes.

I propose that unless there are some sources provided soon to support the KJ debate text section, the whole section should go as failing WP:V and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). The one source there is great, but it is not clear whether the position it advocates interplays with the normal position of IBs, so it is of limited use in this context. In short, based on the source provided I can't verify what this section says, let alone what it implies, nor do I have any idea how central the "debate" is to IBs so as to determine the weight it should receive in the article.

Novaseminary (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

• Since nobody has objected or come forward with any sources, I will delete the section. Novaseminary (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Done with this edit. Novaseminary (talk) 06:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section

I posted a section entitled Criticism with the following text: "== Criticism ==

Independent Fundamentalist Baptists churches were featured on the April 8, 2011 20/20 television Program. The program featured a former member who alleges that she was forced to confess to the sin of adultery after she was raped as a teenager by an adult member of the church. The program also discussed the churches teachings on corporal punishment as well as a defense of the church by an IFBC pastor who said that such events were aberrational from normal church practice.

Several websites created by former IFB members alleged that the church is a dangerous cult.<ref[7]</ref>"

This section was deleted. I think the section I added was fairly neutral in presenting the controversy regarding the IFB's, and was well documented. Before I repost it, I want to see what the consensus of other editors on this article is. Jmbranum (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The problems is that the selection presents "Independent Fundamentalist Baptists churches" as a single homogenous group in which this problem is widespread. Having not seen the 20/20 program in question, I can't comment as to how the program was presented,but you wrote "The program featured a former member" - that's a member of a specific chruch, not a menber of allt he churches as a whole. Also, the statement that "Several websites created by former IFB members alleged that the church is a dangerous cult" treat the group as one church, and the sites given are not considered reliable sources per WP:RS. Independent Baptists churches are by nature a very diverse droup with no single head, and it is very difficult to make blanket statements, as it is not a hierchial group like the Roman Catholic Church. Now, if the 20/20 program presented memebers from specific churches, then such info could be presented on the specific church article, if one exists. However, this article is not the place to try to present the issue as being widespread without specific reliable sources that actually say that. All church groups to some degree have dealt with such issues, and it's not unique to a specific type of church or church group. - BilCat (talk) 03:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

BilCat gets it just right, I would say. If RSs indicate that this is widespread or, somehow, an actual characteristic of these types of churches, then it might meet WP:UNDUE, but not as is. As noted, this might be appropriate on a particular church's article (and having a 20/20 segment dealing with a particular church leads me to believe that particular church might have been sufficiently covered to meet WP:ORG/WP:N). In addition, the website/former member mentions also raise WP:SYNTH / WP:OR issues. Novaseminary (talk) 04:09, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Disagree that the fact that the churches are non-denominational gives the church a pass. If there's no central hierarchy, then what is this article documenting? The point has been made in the sources cited that child victims were exported from one congregation to another in a faraway city. If that's not proof of at least some sort of inter-congregational communication, I don't know what is. The fact that this collection of congregations falls short of a traditional ecclesial denomination should not keep content from true, verified references from appearing. Additionally, about the only people who would care about the distinction would be the members of the church themselves, who by definition are biased towards a particular view. The ABC 20/20 episode had an articulate, apparently gentle preacher from one of the congregations, who expressed precisely this view. So let's "teach the controversy," as it were, and include both. Suppressing valid and relevant information in the name of a piece of church doctrine may be fine for a theological encyclopedia published by a particular church group, but Wikipedia is not that. Alan Canon (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

While I totally disagree with your interpretation of my view, your addition is by far the least POV one that has been added to the article, and I won't delete it. In dealing with controversy, the tension between experienced editors wtih differing POVs is part of the process in producing a neutral article, and you addition is the first step towrand covering this issue in a neutral manner. Most of the other additions were too far from neutral to rmain as written. The 20/20 piece has caused quite a stir already in independent Baptist circles, and once - if - reliable sources start covering that reaction, we can add them to the section. In essence, 20/20 is becoming part of the controversy, not just reporting on one. - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked at those earlier edits, but of course I'm glad to hear it. I did this in haste on my way to a rehearsal, and when I get a little more time tomorrow I'll go back and mention the issue above in the article itself in connection with the 20/20 video, and references to the sympathetic pastor as well. The show actually had fairly responsible reportage, I thought so if we just describe the show well, then we'll be in NPOV territory, and everyone should be able to live with themselves. And more importantly, each other! :) Alan Canon (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

But do we have any idea whether this comports with WP:UNDUE? Per UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." How many of these churches are there? Is this widespread? I don't know. This one source is not sufficient to establish this. I'm going to remove it pending better support and context. Novaseminary (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Given the size if the article, the controversy section is definetely out-of-proportion, but I felt that could be worked on as we go along. It was certainly better than the previous attempts, and since Alan did discuss it here (and none of the others did, except Jmbranum), I thought it best to leave it, and discuss it further rather than for me to remove controversy again, as I had done so several times already, at the risk of violating 3RR. - BilCat (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I wrote the earlier Controversy section of this page, and stand by it. I welcome seeing what copy replaces it and trust that no editors with ties to the IFB itself or the Baptist church are preparing the content? (If they have ties, I suggest they refrain from involvement.) Perhaps we can learn from the "Catholic sex abuse cases" page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_sex_abuse_cases</ as an example of a proper way of dealing with this subject matter. From my online research, there is obviously no shortage of cases of abuse by IFB leaders and members over th past decades. And, no, I have no ties to the IFB, I am just a concerned citizen wanting to accurately inform Americans of the news.Mykjoseph (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

[Novaseminary], nothing personal, but based on my review of dozens of Baptist-related Wikipedia stories that you have edited or written over the years, it is very questionable that you can provide a fair, balanced and "independent" perspective to this article. You appear to be much more of a church insider or PR person.Mykjoseph (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I assure you, I have no connection with any IFB church, nor do I even know anybody who does (so far as I know). In fact, it was removing spam links and other fluff that brought me to this article in the first place, not an affinity for this movement. Regardless, per WP:NPA, I plan to focus on whether text meets WP guidelines and policies rather than motivations of editors (so long as they are not disruptive). The text you added failed WP:UNDUE and WP:SYNTH and possibly others. Your good faith doesn't change that fact. Novaseminary (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Where's the article?

It's odd, given such a lengthy and detailed discussion section, that the Independent Baptist article has a total of three sentences. Can someone work to expand it? This seems like an important topic on religion, and it's too bad that the article isn't more detailed. KBurchfiel (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nova Seminary, the editor who doesn't have a connection to the Baptist church but his Wikipedia name is named after a prominent Baptist seminary in Canada, plans to edit it I think during 2011 to include reference to abuse cases against church members. Of course, many more people could be abused by the time this information is posted. Oh well.Mykjoseph (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC) 14:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. I assure everyone, I have always and will continue to follow WP:COI. I have not attacked you personally and expect the same in return. Nobody needs permission to edit this article. They just should follow WP policies and guidelines and jump in (with reliable sources, please!). There is very little utillity in noting generally that somebody should expand an article, this one or any other. And remember, one of the things WP is not (WP:NOTNEWS) is a news source. Novaseminary (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Mykjoseph's recent additions

I am going to revert Mykjoseph's recent additions. The "Beliefs" section is OR as it violates WP:SYNTH. It also cites probable non-RS primary sources. The "Controversy" section is a similar SYNTH violation, as well as an WP:UNDUE violation as it takes coverage of events and extrapolates them to the entire movement without context. Further, it cites several non-RSs (youtube videos, etc.). It also appears to have been inserted to highlight a single non-profit group (Tina Anderson Foundation) the article for which was created recently by Mykjoseph's. The text also seems to be POV as belied by Mykjoseph's statement towards the end of the Criticism Section above that s/he is "a concerned citizen wanting to accurately inform Americans of the news." Novaseminary (talk) 03:27, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done with this edit. Novaseminary (talk) 03:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Where did this arrticle go?

Oh look, yet another article about Baptists turned into a stub for spurious reasons. -- 202.124.72.250 (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)