Why Fundamentalists Don't Listen To Our Critics

http://dorightchristians.wordpress.com/2013/04/06/why-fundamentalists-dont-listen-to-our-critics/

 

WACKO is an acronym in that particular article and is directed toward a particular group of people, but applicable to critics in general in many areas.
Certainly fundamentalists have their weaknesses and I've written about some of those on there, but the critics against fundamentalism are not satisfied with seeing flaws ameliorated, they want the total destruction of fundamentalism, period.

 

A "fundy" doesn't separate from you simply because you are a sinner, because then we would all be an island. It is when the practice of sin becomes a normal and acceptable lifestyle that continues unabated.

Even if I or others did not consider ourselves fundamentalists, 1 Cor 5:11 is still in the Bible. Now if you don't believe the Bible, then that's an entirely different subject.

 

That is a fair assessment although you have much more grace than I do in having a good time with and praying with Pentacostals.:laugh:

I do believe that Baptists can be over-reaching in their application of separation. The definition may be spot on, but the implementation of it is sometimes at odds with scripture. I have had those separate from me simply because I do not worship a man in a pulpit even though I do not meet the criteria of what a Baptist would normally consider grounds for separation. I see nothing in the Bible that says "If a brother or sister is not in agreement with your view of your pastor, ye shall have no company with him". And it gets even worse if you dare write an article about that pastor or pastors.

The article was directed at a particular crowd. It was not meant to imply that fundamentalists are beyond criticism. There is a particular crowd that have made their mission in life to blame the evils of the world on the IFB, and if an IFB preacher does not mention the word "abuse" in every sermon or article, or somehow incorporate it at least once a day in a conversation, then that person is considered a supporter of abuse that is apathetic towards victims. And because that crowd seems to be the most outspoken against fundamentalists, that is who the article is directed at.

There are some preachers, some Baptist and some not, that occasionally will notice something among fundamentalists that is awkward, sinful, or hypocritical, and speak according on the matter, but they do not treat the subject as if it is a full time job with benefits to tear down every element of fundamentalism.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day, so occasionally the regular critic may say something that has merit, but on the whole, so much of what is said against fundamentalists falls into the categories listed in the article that it falls on deaf ears.

 

The fact that I didn't list those names in this thread, but you know who I am referring to shows that are a sufficient amount of people that are on this forum that read their blogs, and that is enough motivation for me to post it here.

Or perhaps I am mistaken where the header of this forum says BAPTIST board. Thus if this is a BAPTIST board, I would think it is relevant to post articles about those who make it their mission in life to attack Baptists.

I don't believe the Pope posts on BB either, so does that mean none here should write about Catholicism?

 

Here is where I call non-sense on that statement, sorry.

On my website, I use the name Jeri Massi on a few articles when referring to Jeri Massi's blogs. Not once have I EVER used the term "BASS" to describe Jeri Massi, which only a person that knows Jeri's blog handle on other websites would know that she uses the name "Bassenco" and "BASS" for short.

In post 11 above, you stated "I do not believe that Dow, Bass, or Joyce post here on the BB. So I don't see what your motivation for placing the link in your first post is?"

So I do believe that you kind of indicted yourself in critiquing my post