Featured Fundamentalists create liberals?

Is it possible that youthful rebellion might have play in the explanation?

 

Is that limited to fundamentalists?

 

You bet it was youthful rebellion. I was there of course. And it had little to do with Granddad, who we only saw him a couple of times a year or so at that point in our lives, since he lived in Murfreesboro, TN, and we lived in Racine, WI. And it had little to do with Dad, either, who was a gentle preacher of the Gospel for 60 years. It had everything to do with youthful rebellion. And I'm not going to say anything more than that, since at this point the details of that rebellion are family matters. Wait for Andrew's autobiography to come out and I think anyone who reads it will say it was youthful rebellion.

Andrew's main problem with Christianity was not with Fundamentalism in particular, but with evangelical Christians in general, in that he felt they did not treat blacks right, as can be read in his book The Sword of the Lord. (This title was not taken from the newspaper name in particular, but from a 19th century--I think it was--sermon.) It all stemmed from an incident at our school in Millington, TN, when it was integrated and supposedly Christian students (not fundamentalists in particular) were vicious to too little black kids (described in his article). There was also an incident in our deep south church which had nothing to do with Fundamentalism and everything to do with Southern prejudice. (For the record, Dad was from PA and Mom from TX, both educated at Wheaton College.) As for our family, we were not allowed to use the "N-word," and I remember Mom and Granddad doing deeds of kindness to black folk. We moved to WI shortly after the above incidents.

Andrew's objections expressed in the essay to the movie, hair and other shibboleths of Fundamentalism were news to me. He's never discussed them with me, and I don't think he mentions these in his book (in particular on p. 250 when he discusses his rebellion), and I don't remember them from what I've read of his autobiography manuscript. My feeling is that they were minor compared to his opposition to the war in Vietnam and to racist Christianity.

 

I liken the logic of this question to:

"Is it possible that 'Baptists' is the biggest impetus for the J.W. movement in the world?"

After all there are more former Baptists among the J.W.'s than any other denomination.

 

Sin (in any denomination) will turn people away from the truth. I used to think the IFBX's (fundamentalists) had a monopoly on this, with all the legalism and rules. Nope. The Church of Christ crowd and holiness crowd are just as bad. I've even seen pride oozing from some Amish folks who looked down on me for wearing lipstick.

So, it's not "fundies" who turn people away. It's any religion full of pride and false "love for God"--Muslims, Amish, Mormon, etc.

 

Is it limited to fundamentalists? Or can "liberals" be "narrow-minded"?

 

AMEN. Any pastor, missionary, preacher, etc. that allows their bias to influence their preaching is wrong. That also includes posting messages we believe are meant for good.

And with that, I have nothing more to say.

 

Good post; and I relate fully with the OP.

Nothing really new here though, bigoted religionists have been driving folks away for millennia. Paul had this to say of the Jews:

For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you, even as it is written. Ro 2:24

And, I don't think the Gentiles have done any better with the tenets of the 2nd covenant than the Jews did with the first.

Check out Ezek 34 also.

 

You are, as the saying goes : painting with too broad of a brush Luke. Fundamentalists are not monolithic.

Now you are being hateful. Are you sure you are in the right when your animosity is so charged up?

You don't like them you say. Do you love them?

 

Luke,

I kindly suggest you are running to the extreme.

NNE goes into ungodly rebellion (such as the OP suggests) caused by someone else.

Ungodly rebellion takes place (as the article states) because one rejects truth and embraces a lie. Look at the reading list given in the article that the author accepted as truthful - was any of it the truth?

The heart of rebellion is rejection. It is not caused by someone else, and no one else is to blame. The author was not forced into rebellion against God, nor was the author blaming anyone else for his rebellion.

The animosity you spill in this thread needs moderation.

Certainly, there are plenty of examples of folks who have "gone off the deep end."

John R. Rice was not one of them. He separated from one whom I consider did - Frank Norris. He separated from those who ran to modernism and extreme the other way - Billy Graham.

The neat thing about the IFB folks is that you can disagree and separate. Unlike the SBC folks who might disagree but never actually separate but play politics - sometimes very dirty.

By the article's own account, the author has shown his regard for his grandfather NOW in contrast to the years of rebellion.

There is a Godly rebellion. A time to stand against someone who is preaching and teaching error.

In the previous thread, I gave two titles and authors who account and document the error of doctrine and life of a "famous" IFB preacher now dead.

THAT is the way to handle those who are in error.

Gather the documentation. Publish the error with the documentation. Expose the error so that any may see and be warned.

If you contend that John R. Rice was wrong - then show the error.

Railing, as you have in this thread, is just as extremist as those you desire to criticize. It is foam and froth with little substance.

 

You don't have to love them to do all that....