The Baptist Standard

A while back we took a look at the Baptist Flag, a separated and sanctified flag for Baptists who don’t want to use the same one as all the other Protestants.

Well, in typical fashion, some Baptists have decided to separate from that flag and make their own “more Biblical” model. So now, in addition to the Baptist Flag, there is the Baptist Standard:

As the site explains:

There is no pledge, this is not an idol or a symbol of arrogance, but rather a statement and a stand that this is what we believe. This flag doesn’t unite all of Christendom, but separates Truth from error.

Boom! Take, that, Mr. Baptist Flag Pledge Man!

So if this new flag is all about separating from error, would it be correct to assume that it is a “Standard Standards Standard”? The mind boggles.

254 thoughts on “The Baptist Standard”

  1. And because IFBers have elevated separation to the most major doctrine of all, I am really glad I have separated from them.

    And the standard Standards Standard? Love it!

    1. And because IFBers have elevated separation to the most major doctrine of all, I am really glad I have separated from them.


      And the standard Standards Standard? Love it!

      I’ve got to say, my favorite standard is an American Standard. It doesn’t make you feel guilty. I just wish others would not monopolize the Standard for so long! :mrgreen:

    1. I wonder if they allow anyone to buy a flag or do you have to sign a statement of belief first so they can assure that no compromisers fly their holy flag?

      Although I find it interesting that they design their OWN flag because none other is good enough, yet they think other people will be satisfied with THEIR design. Maybe I don’t like their flag either. Maybe I’ll design my OWN!

  2. Love the caption on the picture! That was my first thought when I saw it, “Hey! It looks like the pyramid with the floating eye on the back of a dollar bill. Aren’t those suppose to be Satanic?” Which of course brings up another whole issue; aren’t they suppose to be separated enough and be fleeing from the appearance of evil? If I think that if looks like it might have Demonic imagery in it, then it won’t be long before Satan worshipers, Rock and Roll musicians, readers of Harry Potter, and members of Mensa all own their own Baptist flag because they all actually worship Satan.

    1. There are many things to look at and analyze in this sinister looking flag. A few things initially popped out at me.

      1. The bible is opened to the center. Since we have an even # of verses in the KJV, it must be opened to Ps. 103: 1 & 2
      2. The Bible shown is a KJV 1611
      3. The 5 letter word β€œTruth” is written on the pillar.
      4. There are 2 people in the water
      5. There are 6 crackers
      6. The reference β€œEph. 3:21” is on the top of the pillar.
      7. There is 1 Globe
      8. The cross is made up of 2 beams
      9. There is half a glass of grape juice

      We will now go through observations 1 – 9 step by step:

      1. 103 * 1 * 2 = 206
      2. (206) + 16 + 11 = 233
      3. (233) * 5 = 1165
      4. (1165) / 2 = 582.5
      5. 582.5 + 6 = 588.5
      6. (588.5) will be put on hold 3 + 2 + 1 = 6
      7. (588.5 still on hold) (6) + 1 = 7
      8. (588.5) +{(7) two times = 77} = 665.5
      9. (665.5) + .5 = 666

        1. I don’t wanna overstep my math bounds, but I’d like to see you work in a cubing a number sometime in one of these formulas based on the power of the trinity or something along those lines.

    1. That’s the same thing I thought when I saw it. I thought good Baptists think Pentecostals are in error when they “get a word from the Lord” because God’s revelation ended with the Bible. But I guess God was able to give them a flag design.

  3. The website says that they believe the Lord’s Supper is for believers in their local church. Does this mean they support open communion or closed communion?

        1. I somehow missed who it was I replying to. Wasn’t poking, just mocking the fundies…

      1. Kinda like the joke about the Christian – new in Heaven, walking along with Saint Peter. He asked Peter what the wall was for. “It’s for the Baptists. They’re on the other side. Because they still think they’re the only ones here.” πŸ˜€

    1. At the bottom of the page, they said they do not believe in the universal church which I guess means they would limit communion to just the members of their local church.

      1. My church practices closed communion on the basis of church discipline. Some people get upset, but I try to explain that we, as a faith family, have certain traditions, just like other families have traditions. When one becomes a member of the family, they are welcome to participate. Not the most popular stance, but it is the one that our church and affiliation have chosen to take.

        1. That’s a strange explanation for closed communion. My family has never excluded any friends or visitors from joining in anything we do together as a family.

        2. I wouldn’t want to a fundy pastor standing in front of the Living God and have to explain to Him why I didn’t allow one of His children to partake of communion.

        3. That is an awkward explanation. After all, if it is God’s table and he compelled us to invite from the “highways and byways” and it is His ministry of grace to us, who are we to refuse someone on the basis of whether we can reprimand them or not? The fact that it is God’s table and God’s ministering of grace to me, not me giving or doing anything for God that made me not hate it anymore.

        4. It seems strange to me as well, but baptists aren’t the only ones to close communion/Eucharist over whatever ill has crossed a line they deem uncrossable/disfellowshippable/excommunicable.

        5. But, at the end of the day, it’s our decision, not yours. If you don’t agree, it’s no skin off my nose. I may disagree with the way you do things as well.

        6. You say it is your decisions not theirs – I strongly disagree on both points. It’s not our decision – it was God’s when he inspired Paul to write the Bible. It’s a tradition in the holiest sense of the word for ALL Christians who believe on the name of the Lord. By excluding it to members of your church only, it appears that your church has a special “dispensation” (since I can safely assume you know the meaning of that word) that indeed Paul was wrong by saying that all Christians were invited to the table.

          I personally believe this is another form of arrogance. “Why should we let you partake of our holy communion?” is how I feel about it. The Gospel is not exclusive!!!

        7. I’m with Kaje on this one. In my view, Communion is a grace that God has freely offered to all people who want it. It is not ours to refuse to anyone.

        8. @Kaje, our decision to practice closed communion is based on the Bible. In 1 Corinthians 5, Paul gives a list of individual that we as a church are not to keep company with, we are not even to eat with them. Now, if an individual comes to the church and he is on the list (sexually immoral, covetous, idolater, etc.) and no one knows him, how can we, in good conscience, allow him to take Communion?

          As I stated, agree or disagree, it’s our decision and we will have to be accountable to God, right or wrong. I don’t ridicule your beliefs and I would appreciate the same respect.

        9. I am not at all ridiculing. I am simply in awe that someone can take Scripture and twist it that way. It’s something I’ve never heard, but obviously it’s common in some fundy circles. I supposed it should surprise me, because it’s another “separation” issue. Personally, I would much rather be accountable to God for giving someone the benefit of the doubt in love that to turn a Christian away from the table. If you remember, in Corinthians, we are to avoid ANYTHING that would offend a brother, especially a young brother, in Christ and I could see this being extremely offensive, in the truest form of the word.

        10. Doesn’t being a member of the family of God take priority over being a member of your church?

        11. @Kaje, but you did ridicule by assuming that I went to a fundy church and we are twisting Scripture. Our stance is based on a reading of 1 Corinthians 5 and the way that plays into church discipline. Does your church practice church discipline?

        12. If you only knew the irony of your question… Yes, the churches I have attended have all practiced church discipline. However, by excluding people from taking communion at your church, it almost comes off that you are using “church discipline” to discipline people NOT in your church. Disallowing someone from taking communion, in the Bible, was a show of disapproval of one’s actions. You are demonstrating disapproval of outsiders in your church by keeping a closed communion. BTW, I’m not sure I understand what church discipline has to do with communion….

          I apologize for assuming you go to (and apparently preach at, from your previous posts) a fundy church. However, your comments betray your thought processes.

          And yes, I really believe it’s a twisting of Scripture, because you are “getting something out of it” that was not at all intended when written. Do you believe in authorial intent? Is your opinion of separation so high, that you will apply it to ALL areas of fellowship? Because I don’t believe you can say that’s what Paul meant at all. Again, I would ten times rather be accountable to God for giving the benefit of the doubt in love than offending a new brother. I believe if you read your Corinthians, you would see this priority of God’s as well.

        13. Someone who says, “At the end of the day, it’s our decision, not yours. If you don’t agree, it’s no skin off my nose” isn’t here for a discussion. He’s here to thumb his nose in the rest of our faces with the holier way he does things. Between this and your trigger-happy approach to mud and bait, you don’t make sense. Seriously, what are you doing here?

        14. @Kaje, I appreciate the respectful back and forth that you and I are having on this issue. I believe we will have to agree to disagree here. And please don’t think that we are using church discipline to go against folks not in our church. We simply reserve the Lord’s Supper for church members. It is what it is. It is just like we believe that the sign gifts have ended, but other churches do not. Some churches believe in election, some churches do not. While I am not encouraging a postmodern, what does the Scripture mean to you, I believe that this particular passage can be applied to various situations. It is not as if we are telling individuals they are not welcome at the church. We are simply reserving this ordinance for the members of our church.

        15. I believe that is completely unBiblical. You seem to be forgetting 1 Cor. 11, where it says “In the first place, I hear that when you come together as a church, there are divisions among you, and to some extent I believe it. No doubt there have to be differences among you to show which of you have God’s approval…A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself… But if we judged ourselves, we would not come under judgment”

          No where are we told to judge another person to see if they are fit to take communion. Paul says here to “examine YOURSELF” so as not to bring condemnation on OURSELF. Not “examine your brother”. You are not responsible to make sure that every soul in your church is right with God before you can serve them communion. That’s not your job. It’s up to each individual. I’ve never even heard of churches doing this and I’ve seen some pretty crazy church stuff. πŸ˜•

        16. I know that Catholic diocese have both threatened and actually withheld the eucharist to politicians who are pro choice.

        17. I don’t support that practice of ever withholding, just saying it’s not unheard of. I think it’s wrong, and you should as BG suggests allow anyone who wants communion to have communion, but closed communion is not unheard of for any number of reasons across denominational lines. I think it’s a minority. Just saying.

        18. Depending on what issues were being hawked by the churches in your circle, I can see not having heard of closed/open communion, especially given the antagonism with which Catholic practices are spoken of.
          There’s actually a third kind of communion (“close,” I think it’s called) that would allow someone of “like faith and practice” to participate in a given church’s communion. Pretty sure most of the churches I grew up around were this way.

        19. I’d feel bad if I were on vacation and visited a Baptist church and at the end were asked NOT to participate in communion because I wasn’t a member.

          Here’s the good thing: I’m free to attend non-IFB churches now (I’m also free from the obligation to be in the church building every Sunday even if I’m on vacation), so I hopefully won’t ever have to be face that kind of exclusion.

        20. Please read 1 Corinthians 5:11-13. These verses make it very clear that there are certain individuals who claim to be brothers but are engaged in sin. As a church, we are instructed in those verses to judge the ones who are inside our church. We are also instructed not to have anything to do with such individuals as long as they are continuing in those sins. How can we, as a church, hold to that standard if we are serving Communion to everyone who walks in the door? Look, I realize it is a controversial issue. I understand why some people hold to the view of serving everyone who claims to be a brother in Christ. Those churches hold their beliefs and my church holds to ours.

          The problem here is the mocking and ridicule that is taking place simply because you are choosing not to accept what I’m saying. For all the talk of intolerance by fundy churches, there is a lot of intolerance here for those who wish to hold to other views. I’m not asking you to participate (or, in this case, not participate). I was simply trying to explain the stance my church takes.

          As far as being excluded, if that’s your view of it, I guess you are. However, please keep in mind that there is a lot about Christianity that is extremely exclusive. Salvation is very exclusive. Only those who have placed their trust in Christ are given salvation. Do you think those who haven’t done so feel excluded?

        21. Well, I believe we have rightly established that PlankEye and Jonathan are one in the same. Grievous.

          Besides that point, you just compared the exclusiveness of salvation to your exclusiveness of communion, thus proving my point how offensive it would be to a younger brother starting ou in his Christian walk. Because if that’s the basis for your argument… well, it’s not that far a leap of logic. I’m sure Shoes could help with a more eloquent explanation of this horribly faulty logic.

        22. Jonathan, you get mocked for your attitude, not for your positions. You can cry “Victim!” all day, but it won’t change the fact that I can reference post after post of unprovoked antagonism and condescension on your part. I call it out where I see it, and if the way I do it isn’t nice enough for you, then maybe you should reconsider your tact. By all means, keep it up, though. Like I’ve said, I very much enjoy our interaction here.

        23. Our church practices a “close” communion. We expresly state that communion is for those who claim Christ as Lord and Savior and for those who do not know Him to please refrain.
          We have considered closed communion for the following reason. The civil authorities may hold to the Catholic view that Communion,in a way, makes one a member of the Church. By having fully open communion it could be possible that someone, with a social agenda contrary to the doctrines of the church, could maintain that having been served communion, they cannot be denied membership in the church. This could lead to people who are not of “like faith and practice” forcing thier way into the church. Just a thought…

        24. “….who claim to be brothers but are engaged in sin. As a church, we are instructed in those verses to judge the ones who are inside our church.”

          Jonathan – a couple of sincere question here. What is your (or your church’s) definition of sin? And what is the criteria that you use to judge people?

          I ask because during my time in the IFB I was preached at that sins include missing any service, not tithing, watching TV etc etc. Just my opinion but I think that judging someone and their sins could be interpreted very differently by different people.

        25. Calling closing communion a “church discipline” action confused me at first, until you filled in by citing 1 Cor 5 as your authority for closing communion. Reading this passage in context, it’s clear that Paul isn’t issuing instructions about communion at all – instead, he’s telling the Corinthians that they should shun any member who persists in sin, refusing even to eat meals with such a memeber. So that is a church discipile passage, and members who persist in open sin in defiance of God should expect ejection from the membership and to be treated as outsiders by church members. But this has nothing to do with the question of strangers at communion.
          In fact, this points up a significant difference between the early church and the present day; it is far more likely that a present-day church will have people come to a worship service who are total strangers, professing to be Christian and expecting to be treated as such on the basis of their word alone. The tolerance (at least in the USA and many Western countries) of Christianity and mobility of ordinary people make this historically strange behavior commonplace.
          I gather that your church, PlankEye, refuses communion to all who are not known to the congregation via membershiop in order to avoid inadvertently serving communion to a “sinner.” The only difficulty is that 1 Cor 5 doesn’t assign any culpabiltiy to the church for that, the same way that it doesn’t address the church’s stand on Sabbath observance. It’s irrelevant. By attempting to prevent your ignorance causing a false sense of wrong, you have only erected a hedge of additional prohibition around the Bible’s clear commandment in the best rabbinical/Talmudic way. Congratulations.
          Let’s look at this from anothe point of view: suppose that strangers walked into the Corinthian church and presented themselves as brothers and sisters from another church, here to gather together for worship with the local believers. Would they have been excluded from the Lord’s Table on the basis of the church’s ignorance? Or would that have been deemed inhospitable or worse? To me, closed communion (where the professing stranger is assumed by 1Cor5 logic to be a sinner for safety’s sake) has no justification and is far likelier to harm the Body than help it. Oops, I just declared my belief in the Church Universal, “…terrible as an army with banners…: 😎
          Jonathan, I will reiterate my point that we can only judge those you KNOW, and that leaves you with options regrading the professing stranger.

      2. I’m not mocking your position. I’m disagreeing with it and discussing it.

        I see a problem with the analogy that salvation is exclusive too because EVERYONE is welcomed to be saved but it is not possible for every Christian to join your church. People on vacation or visiting family members cannot join your church and I still see no legitimate reason for keeping such people from sharing communion with you.

        I do agree that when the Bible tell us not even to eat with a sinning brother who will not repent that this would include communion, but to me, that’s not THAT common. Surely, if there was a willfully sinning member of your church who’d been approached one on one, then with a witness, and then before the church, he or she could be told, “You are not welcome to participate in communion with us until you repent.” I just truly do not see why desiring to obey God by keeping the unrepentant one from taking communion with the body would lead to the rule that prohibits ALL other Christians outside your church from joining you. To me, the church leaders are responsible for following Scripture in “banning” the brother continuing in willful sin, but other than that, we are told that each individual is to examine himself that he does not take unworthily. I don’t believe it is the duty of the church to withold the cup and bread from everyone except those you have safely approved. I think it is more Biblical to give it to all who proclaim Christ, only specifically witholding from those who refuse to repent. It seems to me to needlessly create an “us vs. them” attitude. I think you can obey 1 Cor. 5:11-13 without barring EVERYONE except your own church members.

  4. Wait a second!?!? I just clicked through to their site and they make this statement, “We do not believe in an universal, invisible church.” Now growing up Fundy I will admit that I slept through a lot of sermons, classes, etc. But I was quite sure that we believed in a universal, invisible church. Granted we also believed that the only ones in that universal, invisible church were Baptists and only Baptists, but not all Baptists, like that liberal church in the next town over who let their teenage girls go down hill skiing and they didn’t have to wear culottes while doing so, but other than that, we were all in the universal, invisible church. Is this something that all fundies teach or are they split on it as well?

        1. I always found the idea of the universal, inivisible church to be a comforting idea. When I was a teen and went on my first mission trip, I wasn’t afraid because I knew there were people who loved God where was I going. When I went to Suriname with my husband and infant son, and stood in a church service and understood not a word, I wasn’t afraid because I sensed the love of God from that place. When my husband went to an Asian country, I wasn’t afraid because I knew the Christians there had been through some real testing, and still proclaimed Jesus as Lord. Another fundy non-doctrine that promotes only fear and control.

        2. I agree with you, boymom. I feel kinship with other believers not only those within my local church. We are the body of Christ, no matter where we gather. It’s comforting and Biblical.

        3. I think there needs to be a deliniation between the Body of Christ and the church. I read the article and the paragraph that deals with ekklesia is similar to what my church teaches. The word that is used refers to an assembled body of believers.

          However, the overall tone of that article was nasty and divisive. I think there are better ways of explaining a “controversial” doctrine than being so argumentative.

        4. This is the view I was taught. Baptist Briders hold this view quite proudly. It helps them feel superior to all the other weak “universalists”.

        5. Read some of the website: Definitely a BAPTIST BRIDER!!!!! Run Run Graand poo-bahs of twisted Scripture!!!!

        6. Not entirely sure what a Baptist Brider is. I can tell you that, even though this is the view of our church, we do not look down on others for their beliefs in regards to these issues. As long as the gospel is being put forth, we can agree to disagree about certain issues.

        7. Tolerance won’t work on this one. Been down this road.
          Who is the bride of Christ? It’s the “church”. Who is the church? All the saved? Briders will say no. The church was started by Jesus and there is a succession of churches linked together from that day. Only a “church” can start a church to have proper authority. Ptotestants have no “authority” since they split from catholics. Therefore the only “true” churches are the ones that were never part of catholics and recieved authority from another church all the way back to Jesus himself. One of the many things this produces is an arrogance towards anyone else who is not in the “Bride”. Because only “true” churches will be in the bride. The rest of us will be guests at the marriage supper of the Lamb. Sad

        8. Wow, fred, I knew they said that about baptism (being baptised by someone who was baptised all the way back to JtB or Christ or whatever). I had no idea they said that about church planting as well. Crazy.

          PS – Hearing the baptism part always made me think of asking for an AKC style documentation showing your spiritual heritage. :mrgreen:

        9. Paul,
          Exactly. Pedigree is everything. That’s why they will start a church in a small town that already had 10 churches in it. Bececause they don’t view them as real churches, just assemblies with no “authority”.

        10. With all due respect(to PW and boymom) I think the both of you misunderstand. The belief or disbelief of a universal church does not exclude feeling kinship with other believers. Those who hold that the church is local and visible only differentiate(sorry if I spelled it wrong) between the church(which they believe is local and visible only) and the family of God(which they believe is universal).

      1. Thanks Darrell. That’s what I thought. Kinda throws the whole New Testament out, but hey, it wouldn’t be the first time. Love how in the Baptist Pillar link that you give above they state, “The universal theory does not have a Biblical foundation, but was conjured up by men.” Then, the next line down they define the local New Testament church in quotation marks with a quote from where? The Bible??? Nope, from man. FTW πŸ˜€

        1. Don’t wanna let the New Testament get in the way of a good means of separation!

  5. I’m already looking forward to seeing what kind of association Shoes can come up w/ for that flag. I assume there’s a coded May 21,2011 message in that flag design somewhere?

  6. My first thought on the flag is that “they aren’t smart enough to find/use latin flags”? My second thought is “of course not, that was dumb to think”…


    1. Latin was used by the Roman Catholic Church, thus Latin is evil.

      Also Latin was a sign of being educated; we don’t need no edumacation! All we need is the KJV Bible! Amen??

    2. At the very least, they could have grabbed some misunderstood and poorly executed Greek to make it look more learned. But again, they probably believe English corrects the Greek. Sigh! πŸ™„

  7. Why would they even think to mention-
    “it is not a symbol of arrogance”
    If you are telling us it isn’t…
    it probably is !!

  8. As a historian, of sorts, any time I see a dominant red flag, it sends up red flags. Do these lunatics not know the countries (in recent history) that have been the most oppressive and controlling have had red as the dominant color in their flag – Communist CHina, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany. Oh wait…that’s exactly what fundies do any way….it’s right in their play book. My bad. Keep your red flag! It fits. πŸ™„

        1. I think that’s what I would refer to as “splitting hairs.” πŸ˜›

    1. “As a historian, of sorts, any time I see a dominant red flag, it sends up red flags.”
      -too funny…and some great insight!

      1. Semper Fi (Latin) is on that one, right? I can’t think of an American flag (or symbol) that has words that doesn’t use latin. Don’t know that many other flags/symbols, but I would presume Latin is generally the motto language standard in most countries.

      2. As every Marine knows: The globe “signifies service in any part of the world”. The eagle also means the same, and the anchor “indicates the amphibious nature of Marines’ duties.” If the official version is too boring for you, there’s always this explanation: “We stole the eagle from the Air Force, the anchor from the Navy, and the rope from the Army. On the 7th day, while God rested, we over-ran his perimeter and stole the globe, and we’ve been running the show ever since. ” (From hubby)

        1. I like hubby’s version.

          Pity I don’t know anyone in the Marines to forward this on to!

    2. Could we be careful about comparing Baptists to Nazis? Not all Baptists are bad and some of us have strong emotional reactions to the atrocities caused by the Nazis.

        1. What mud? What bait? What’s your deal? Nobody’s been aggressive with you. RobM even gave you a smiley before you accused him of “baiting” you. Smooth, man. Then you jump on a woman you don’t know for “reverse judgmentalism” when she’s just expressing her distaste (and maybe a latent emotional reaction?) for a certain dress code. How many have come before you trying to “set the rest of us straight”? We don’t need it, thanks. All it does is cause someone else (usually PW) to waste their time reexplaining why we’re all here (and she did a really good job over on the Trollfest 2011 forum posting). And GmotBob isn’t saying anything outrageous. He just said you should think about the emotional reactions your fundy sympathizing (You’re not a fundy? CLOSED communion? Really?) might cause around here.
          Nut up or shut up, man. Your schtick’s getting old.

        2. I was attempting to stay above the fray and avoid the conflicts that often arise when you and others comment on my posts. I’m sorry you don’t like what I have to say. I wasn’t trying to upset anyone. Pull your head out of your a$$ and think once in a while. I wasn’t saying my way was the only way. I was simply saying the way that we do things at my church. Your condescending attitude toward me is getting old. If you don’t like what I write, don’t comment on it.

        3. Let me repeat the first sentence. Please read the entire sentence this time.

          I was attempting to stay above the fray and avoid the conflicts that often arise when you and others comment on my posts.

          Every time I post you and a select group of individuals take it upon yourselves to attack, ridicule, and mock everything that I write. It’s getting old. You accuse me of being a troll, but yet you all are the ones who come with the baited responses and attacks. It was funny at first, but it’s time for you to move on. You don’t like what I have to say, fine, but just move on and let me post my thoughts.

        4. And I’m talking about today. Right now. This post. You think that by changing your name you get to address my history here while avoiding your own, Jonathan. That’s right, Jonathan. For someone so bold about calling people out “from behind their keyboards,” it seems awfully hypocritical of you to use a pseudonym. Why don’t you just drop the lame-o name-o so we can go back to our fun, hmm?

        5. Question. How is a$$ different than ass. Just say it. You obviously meant to. OP is a little girl.

  9. Why is there a pan flute next to the cup of Welch’s? And isn’t that flame kinda Pentecostal looking? Oh, and saying “world without end” on it is rather Anglican- (never mind that it comes from that Ephesians verse.. gotta avoid appearance and all)

    1. I’m amused that vague wavy lines were added in the background of the cup and the pan flutes. Also the content of the cup looks black and quite scary.

      I also thought the vague, faceless figures getting baptized looked like they were dancing. And couldn’t they be seen as evil because you can’t differentiate if they’re men or women?

    2. I thought the flame looked Pentecostal too, but they made sure to say on their site that the FIRST meaning of the fire is as to picture “the duty of the Lord’s churches to be Keepers of the Flame: to pass down the Truth from generation to generation until the Lord calls us home.” Only secondarily does it stand for “the ‘Fire of God’ – the Holy Spirit whom indwells every believer.” (By the way, that’s a completely incorrect use of “whom”.)

        1. Sorry. Wasn’t sure. White pianos, pan flutes. Who knows what people see. πŸ™‚

    3. I thought it was a block of cheese, not a pan flute, but it’s definitely not anything you would identify as bread, and the cup isn’t anything anyone would recognize as a chalice…

      1. IFB’s don’t use chalices! I suspect it would’ve looked too much like shot glasses if they’d used.. well.. Baptist shot glasses πŸ™‚

        1. Don’t I know it. I’m kind of surprised they didn’t iconography a small plastic cup. They just used some random sifter(?) type glass full of a murky beverage.

          I’ve never seen any Baptist use that much grape juice in communion or a that kind of glass

  10. -the hard sell on TRUTH(!) is betraying a bit of arrogance there fellows. It SCREAMS out “We are truth and you are not”

    -hiding the KJV 1611 in the bible is betraying the KJV only arrogance as well. Not appropriate, but they always have to find a way to separate about something don’t they?

    Otherwise it is much nicer than that other newer baptist flag, good use of color and other than the massive TRUTH text, not terribly “hit over the head” type message.

    grade a B overall, as it stands it is a symbol of arrogance, but now they can’t change it since that will be compromisin’..

  11. My question is: if we don’t have a pledge, why do we need a flag? And, if this is a battle standard, but we ‘wrestle not against flesh and blood’, then shouldn’t the standard be invisible too? I sure wish it was.

        1. Your just jealous that I use the word “vituperative” from time to time! :mrgreen:

        2. By the way, that’s a completely incorrect spelling of the word “you’re”.

  12. Checked the site out

    (1) I assumed the flame represented the holy spirit as per usual. Of course not. They seem to think there is a biblical charge to be “keepers of the flame” that it is supposed to represent. Holy Spirit is at best secondary represented in the flame.

    (2) The Lord’s Supper appears to be a block of cheese & some hard liquor?

    (3) the Baptism thing looks more like some people quaking at trembling at the first time they are going mixed bathing

    (4) Foreshadowing is a literary device, not superimposing a cross on top of a globe in photoshop.

    1. LOL! Out of almost 7 billion people in the world, the Almighty Creator of the Universe entrusted two doughy guys from Bumf*** Ohio to design the only flag ever that meets His approval.

      1. I took particular delight in the fact they don’t know what foreshadowing is. I actually did a check to make sure I wasn’t wrong, cause it was such a ridiculous use of the term… πŸ™‚

        I’m sure they would say “no good thing ever comes from Nazareth or BumF*** Ohio…” πŸ™‚

        1. Yes, indeed, instead we’ll ask why would God choose two privileged white men from the heart of the world’s most powerful country to design His perfect flag!

        2. Yes, the foreshadowing explanation. Wonder how they would react if you corrected them!

  13. They avoided alliteration on the flag – perhaps to clearly separate from the Baptist flag – but couldn’t help but alliterate on the site describing the flag: the Bible is described as “preserved, precious, and powerful.”

    (Admittedly, “world without” uses alliteration, but that’s a Scripture quote not separate points like a Baptist message.)

  14. And what’s with the JT under the communion elements? I know artists sign their work, but do flag designers put their initials on the flag?

    Anyway the designer’s initials are JA. So does it stand for Jeff and Travis, the designer and the pastor?

    1. I think it is J A. If you follow the ending stroke of the capital J up to the top of the second letter, follow the stroke downward and then back over to the left to the J, I think the “artist” was getting fancy. Personally, I think it looks like the work of a junior higher…

      I browsed their site. They went on a couples’ retreat. The men all in jeans, the women all in skirts. Yeah. Puke.

      1. Your last statement smacked for “reverse judgmentalism”. I know the fundys look down on others for not wearing skirts, but should you stoop to their level and look down them because they decide to?

        1. I guess because as women it’s personal. Casual dress for guys meant they got to wear jeans and be comfortable. Casual dress for women meant we were still in skirts (and sometimes still hose too!) In other words, we were NOT casual nor comfortable.

        2. (Although I’ll admit that I have some super comfortable, long, flowy skirts that I really enjoy. They make me feel feminine and pretty without feeling constricted and dressy.)

        3. Did you ever see the movie The Animal? There was a black character in the movie that kept claiming reverse racism because the waitress would always fill his glass first and the angry mob dispersed only after he told them to.

        4. @ PW it is indeed personal. I was subjected to only dresses & skirts or those nasty culotte things (all below the knee) while my brothers were able wear pants and shorts and BE comfortable. While in public, I was mocked and ridiculed because who in their right mind wears culottes in the middle of winter when it’s -10! Yeah….a fundie.

        5. Um. Seeing that every single one of the women were wearing skirts/dresses, I am quite sure it was mandatory. THAT makes me sick.

        6. I’ve always thought people should wear what they like. If you want to wear a dress, I won’t object. (That goes for men, too.) It’s when somebody starts saying that one kind of clothing makes you more or less holy, or more or less sinful, than somebody else, that I call BS.

        7. IMO, the dress code also represents the oppressive roles that fundies impose on both genders.

  15. I love the Bible. I read it every day…but I admit I have a problem with the big HUGE Bible and the Teeny Tiny Cross. ❓ ❓ ❓

    1. ooooh, good observation. I think that’s just another example of how some fundies hold up the KJV 1611 to the point where it becomes an idol. You don’t really have to READ it (in fact, please don’t, because you might find out what pastor is saying is a bunch of baloney!) but you better bow down to it! creepy…

      1. Actually, you had better read it because if you don’t, some guy will come to your church/college with stories of how his son as a student in law school read the Bible for four hours per day and still maintained a 4.0 GPA. He’ll shame you into trying to do the same thing and you’ll feel terrible when you can’t maintain the same ridiculous standard.

        1. I know what you mean. I’ve seen Bible reading turned into a contest or a way to prove oneself spiritual, instead of a way to learn from God and grow in Him.

  16. So let me see if I got this straight. We had to make our OWN flag, because all other flags were wrong and evil and probably designed by Satan himself, and we also don’t believe in the universal church because obviously we are the only true church… but we felt the need to point out that none of this was due to arrogance. Right. Got it…

  17. Nuts, you can only get it in 3×5 or 4×6 foot sizes.
    On the Lord’s supper field the initials JT are quite visible. Who is JT? It’s obviously not Jesus Christ. Maybe it is suppose to be JTB, John The Baptist.

  18. Good thing they made it extremely obvious which Bible version they use. Why’s the Bible open to Psalms? I only skimmed the website, but I didn’t see anything.

    1. I think they’re being disrespectful because although I can read the words “Psalms” and “KJV 1611”, the rest of the Bible words are nothing but illegible scribbles. If they TRULY honored God’s Word, they would have inscribed actual VERSES upon the open pages of the Bible on their flag! :mrgreen:

      1. I’m under the assumption that when Shoes said Psalm 103:1&2 is where it was turned, that he had the ability to read due to being closer to God than the rest of us, and I don’t think I would dare to imply that Shoes was just making up numbers & math to prove a link to 666 that didn’t really exist… πŸ™‚

        1. tread carfully my friend. i think i am detecting smarmyness …. you wouldn’t want to be investigated …. would you? πŸ˜€ πŸ‘Ώ

        2. No, sir! I wouldn’t want that! I’m very very very afraid of what my name, rank & serial number would add up to! πŸ™‚

  19. I found this site last week thru a friend’s fb post. I initially found it funny since I had run fast and far from fundyville years ago and could relate. However, after my flight, I spent a very long time bitter and lamenting the years fundyville had cost me. So much so that I made decisions and acted in the other extreme to “show them” . Which, of course, showed them nothing, but certainly hurt me and simply wasted more precious time. I found after a few days of reading these posts that the old familiar tension was too easily returning. I have never chatted or posted on a blog before, but rather than just walking away, I hoped that someone could learn from my mistakes. It’s ok and necessary to laugh and cry over what we’ve experienced, but its also real easy and maybe a real danger to allow ourselves to wallow in it…because then we haven’t fully broken the bond they had over us.

    1. Do you have close family still in the fundy movement?

      Not everyone is at the same stage you are…some are recently removed from the movement and others have connections (friends, family, etc.) that make it difficult to move on.

    2. I would recommend that you not read the comments if they bother you. However, for some, they are cathartic, other comments are immensely helpful and full of grace (see comments from PW), other comments are just funny (see Shoes and Rob), others are sometimes rude (see attacks on trolls), but you will find that as a mature person, you can take the good and discard the bad without it having a negative effect on you. If you find you can’t ignore the bad comments, then just read the posts.

      1. Hi praise to be compared to the master: Shoes. I think Jeff is often funnier than I am, and I miss Reader Mo who always was the most ridiculously funny commenter ever!

    3. And others of us are here for the laughs. I mean cummon. There’s some funny stuff. Shoes never disappoints, and my personal pick for comment of the day:

      LOL! Out of almost 7 billion people in the world, the Almighty Creator of the Universe entrusted two doughy guys from Bumf*** Ohio to design the only flag ever that meets His approval.


  20. OK, I was feeling fine and chuckling at this. Then I clicked through and read the website. Really?!?! How inane and simply thoughtless can you be to come up with some of those “points”.

    As usual, I wish I had copies of pages from the 1611 KJV to send them. Read that back to me and explain it or quit saying 1611. I need to print tracks to give to people like this. Get a clue!

    1. I just had to say that, odd as it was, my old fundy pastor who was KJVO actually owned a page of the original 1611 Bible. I could never understand the lack of assimilation of facts… and I was 10.

  21. It looks so sharp! This type of thing is what will really unify the believers. I mean, seperate the goats from the sheep- oh no, wait, it will CLARIFY what the sheep stand for (without being arrogant or in anybody’s face- this is definitely not a pride thing), and then once we are all good and clear, we’ll know who better to follow? I really don’t what they think they’re accomplishing, but then I don’t really get the logic behind the Christian flag (or its pledge) either. Yeah, this is what we need now.

  22. That flag will look real nice standing close to that baptismal mural. If I were to guess, I think that mural is of John the “First” Baptist baptizing Jesus,but that’s just a guess.

  23. @Loren and Mark Yes, I do still have family with ties to fundamentalism. I could tell from the posts that there were those who had left many years ago and some very new to the freedom. Mark, I most certainly did “wallow”, but I was talking about myself and what I did as a result. This venue will be good therapy for many, but I know me well enough to know that I can’t be one of them. I was simply trying to say that though this is a way to deal with our past ( or present), letting us know that we aren’t the only ones having been thru it, some of us could easily use it to feed our hate and anger, as I would have a tendancy to do. Most will laugh, and share, cry and fight to forgive, but if there is one person using this to “wallow” in their anger, then I simply wanted to warn them to be careful not to do what I did and probably would do if I lingered. I don’t understand how you took offense at that, Mark. I was not aiming at anyone, except those who would see themselves in me.

    1. What offense? I asked you a question. You were using inclusive words like “we” and “ourselves,” so I wanted to know if that’s what you thought we were doing.

      What is it with people reading offense and aggression into things today? Sheesh.

        1. Aahhh the good old weaker brother argument. Brought to bear on you whenever you start having fun.

          Kinda like what Calvin said (referencing his father) “Calvin, go do something you hate. Being miserable builds character.”

          Calvin & Hobbes in case anyone isn’t awesome enough to get the quote…. :mrgreen:

    2. “Not what I did”, I don’t have any problem with what you’ve stated in your comments. I totally get what you are saying, and agree with it 100%.

      Nevertheless, I LOOOOOOOVE visiting this website and getting a kick out of the “peculiar” (isn’t that a BJU reference?)stuff that goes on in fundyland, and remembering thinking how peculiar it all was when I believed it all, down to the T.

      1. I agree with you Megan. I understand what “not what i did” means. “Hi,NWID!” I only come here for the laughs, because I’ve been out of fundyland long enough that I’m way past the resentment, guilt, anger, sadness, blah blah blah. I can totally relate though with the temptation to wallow in it. I get pi$$ed at family and friends who think I’m still bitter just because I enjoy these sites.

    3. It took me 6 months of reading SFL & comments, and then not reading for a few days, and then reading some more, and then not reading before I was able to comment, and not just be irate at the subject matter.

      As they say to the gays (and applies to ex fundies, and any other bullying victims too): it gets better

    4. Totally get what you’re saying. (And yes, Mark Thomas, it did read as if you were taking offense πŸ˜‰ )

      For me, it IS good therapy to laugh at the ridiculousness of it. My current fundy church isn’t quite as bad as most described on here and my first fundy church was probably worse, but it really helps.

      Though I do have to watch that I don’t “wallow” in it while doing nothing about it. It’s like constantly picking a scab. I think about it too much…..

    1. Can I be direct here? I think way too many IFB churches are not really doing anything for the Lord. They hand out tracts and have revivals, but in actuality spend very little time investing in their community or trying to make disciples. They are busy with “churchy” things, impressing other Christians or fighting with other Christians.

      Honestly, if they were involved more in feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the sick, maybe they wouldn’t have had all this time to come up with a completely unnecessary flag.

      1. My dad is a mostly retired IFB pastor (although not at all like the jumping on the pulpit screamers seen on this site), and we’ve had conversations about this lately. I’ve told him point blank that I think many fundamentalists today are no different from Catholics in thinking that works will save them. He agrees.

        In addition to growing up IFB I got a BS degree from what’s called here “Fundy U”. Looking back I realize I lived as a social christian. I did the right stuff and enjoyed church and school. But as an adult I spent many years living like the devil. It was only a couple years ago after getting to the end of my rope that, by the grace of God, I was genuinely converted.

        I’m concerned that there are many “good” people like I was who think they’re saved because they fit into the IFB culture but who really don’t know Christ at all. I regret my years of sinful free for all, but if I’d continued in the IFB I may never have realized my sinful condition. Maybe those “You are not entering the mission field signs” should be put at the entrances of many churches.

        Sorry about the off topic rant.

        1. very well said

          I agree with your Dad

          it’s in all camps–the IFB’s are just the most vocal and militant nowadays since no one else, they get the limelight.

          Works never works, whether its legalist standards or liberal “karma”

          Th emission field sign should be on both sides.

        2. G222, i have the same testimony of God’s great grace and mercy in my life. minus the Fundy-U time served. thank god it’s over now and real now

  24. I like the smile of the guy on the right…LOOK WHAT I DID I LOVE ME…I wonder if they will put this monumental accomplishment on their resume or bio … I.e. “Brother Smiley Pants lead fearlessly against the tide of compromise so rampant among us in this Laodicean church by bolding stepping forward and taking the mantle of leadership when forging and creating a new OLD PATHS BAPTIST flag! We thank the Lord, Jack Hyles and the KJV bible for men like Brother Smiley Pants that despite the hailstorm of criticism this step of unyielding faith would bring. Brother Smiley Pants would not crumble when viciously attacked by liberal compromisers that wish to continue the apostate practice of using the traditional christian/protestant flag. To this Brother Smiley Pants we are eternally thankfull.

  25. OMG OMG OMG! I just saw at the very bottom of the page they have listed that they are Ohio’s friendliest church! After spending all the time to design that flag & explain why it was needed above & beyond the standard christian symbols (cross, eucharist, baptism, etc), existing Christian flag, existing Baptist flag, and then say they are still the friendliest church in Ohio.

    Irony much?

    1. As far as I can tell from the blood-red scrawl at the top of the page, the name of the church is “Illegible Baptist Temple.”

      You’d think the friendliest Church in Ohio would at least tell you its name.

    1. OK, sorry. I’m colorblind and can’t always tell when there’s a link. After viewing the site, I must say that the bread looks like cheese…Good Morning, Sir! Welcome to the National Cheese Emporium!

        1. Monty Python helps keep me sane as I seek to effectively withdraw from the IFB without going into bankruptcy and placing debt on my retired parents, who graciously co-signed a load so that I could move out of the house and actually have my own life (which, in turn, led to my disillusionment with the IFB).

        2. The color definitely looks like cheese: not sure that shape is of anything I’ve ever seen.

          And just realized. I usually love Lord’s Supper, especially finishing off with “Till the Storm Passes By.” (Don’t ask me why.) But the lady who usually sings it has been kicked out/left, and it won’t be the same πŸ˜₯

  26. Just clicked over to the website and checked out their staff page. Got to the first picture and my 6-year old looked over my shoulder and said, “Hey, it’s that guy from Night at the Museum.” She thought he was Ricky Gervais. haha

  27. I went to the link and read about the symbolism of all the different parts of their standard, but I didn’t anywhere see a spiritual significance attatched to the yellow fringe around the edges! Someone dropped the ball! I KNOW there’s got to be a Biblical tie-in that proves flags with yellow fringe are holier than ones without!

    1. It’s representative of the gold in heaven.
      Or, as I prefer to think of it, the gold facade that IFB’s put on when in reality their interior is full of sh*t. Much like this flag.

      1. I feel like dropping one of those back pew affirmation lines. Like “Preach it!” or “That dog’ll hunt!”

        I was in a service once when an old booming voice actually yelled out, “Shake that bush!” I kid you not.

        1. One of my brothers spent a summer at the Bill Rice Ranch and came home saying “shake that bush!” nonstop. Guess it’s southern.

        2. I’m from the south and have never heard the saying. Maybe it’s an old south thing or perhaps it’s specific to Bill Rice….

  28. I’ve seriously stayed at this church for a month when my family and I were on the mission trail. Generally, the people were nice, but you always felt like you were about to break an unspoken rule when you were on the premises. They even refused to send support through our mission for some weird pseudo-theological reason.

  29. I can’t believe they didn’t put anything on their flag about the T.I.T.H.E. (I now refer to it as an acronym = The Idiot Tax Has Ended.)

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.