Church Standards?

[Salty]

I am starting this thread, as I do not want hijack Evans OP.

Brother, I think you're talking more about preferences where I'm speaking more of standards. With the dress standard, my wife wears pants. But our church believes that biblically a woman should not wear pants. So, my wife doesn't wear pants on the church grounds or at church functions. We compromise our lower standard in deference to the higher.

In music, I listen to contemporary music. But our church believes it is wrong. So, at church and around church members I defer to their standard. To play contemporary music around them, knowing their standard, would be sin.

In some churches, you would be ousted for allowing your wife to wear pants -even outside the church grounds.
Some would say that you do compromise by maintain your lower standards.

So my question is - are you being honest to your church by not consistently holding to their higher standards.

 

[Salty]

those are fundamentals, not Fundamentalism.

Here's Fundamentalism:
We betta not catch you with anything other than KJV

We betta not catch you havin even a smidge of alcohol

We betta not catch you wearin a skirt that shows your whole knee

We betta not catch you in a pool hall

We betta not catch you in a dance club

We betta not catch you talkin bad about a deacon or the pastor

We betta not catch your grow'd up kids doin no sinnin'

From what I have seen, Fundamentalism = wacky, backward, legalist

It's almost the same as the difference between a charismatic and Charismatic. I agree with the first, but am repulsed by the other.

But as it relates to this thread, I would hold ny nose and attend with a wife. Especially if I made the horrendous mistake of marrying a Fundamentalist in the first place

Incorrect - those standards are NOT Fundamentalism - that is LEGALISM.

 

[TCassidy]

We do not have "standards." We have ONE standard, the word of God.

If the bible says "do it" we do it.

If the bible says "don't do it" we don't do it.

If the bible is silent on the subject, so are we.

 

[StefanM]

I am starting this thread, as I do not want hijack Evans OP.



In some churches, you would be ousted for allowing your wife to wear pants -even outside the church grounds.
Some would say that you do compromise by maintain your lower standards.

So my question is - are you being honest to your church by not consistently holding to their higher standards.

I think that the verbiage is somewhat biased here (unintentionally). A "higher" standard implies a greater quality or holier element. Instead, I prefer the the terms "strict" and "less strict."

 

[TCassidy]

those are fundamentals, not Fundamentalism.

Here's Fundamentalism:
We betta not catch you with anything other than KJV

We betta not catch you havin even a smidge of alcohol

We betta not catch you wearin a skirt that shows your whole knee

We betta not catch you in a pool hall

We betta not catch you in a dance club

We betta not catch you talkin bad about a deacon or the pastor

We betta not catch your grow'd up kids doin no sinnin'

From what I have seen, Fundamentalism = wacky, backward, legalist

It's almost the same as the difference between a charismatic and Charismatic. I agree with the first, but am repulsed by the other.

But as it relates to this thread, I would hold ny nose and attend with a wife. Especially if I made the horrendous mistake of marrying a Fundamentalist in the first place

From what I have seen, Fundamentalism = wacky, backward, legalist

Then you have never seen real, historic, fundamentalism.

Especially if I made the horrendous mistake of marrying a Fundamentalist in the first place

The alternative to marrying a fundamentalist would be to marry either an unbeliever or a Theologically Liberal Modernist.

 

[StefanM]

Then you have never seen real, historic, fundamentalism.The alternative to marrying a fundamentalist would be to marry either an unbeliever or a Theologically Liberal Modernist.

I think it's a difference in defining terms. In terms of the Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy of the early 20th century, yes, being a fundamentalist would be the standard label for a Bible-believing Christian.

"Fundamentalist" today has a different connotation for a lot of people. For instance, I am a member of an SBC church that is firmly committed to all of the fundamentals of the faith, but it would not identify as fundamentalist, and I wouldn't label it as such.

The term "evangelical" is my preference. I know it's not perfect, and perhaps even "conservative evangelical" would be better. But I would want to draw a distinction between contemporary churches with legalistic tendencies and those without them. Both can adhere to the fundamentals of the faith, but church practices can be dramatically disparate.

 

[JonC]

I think that the verbiage is somewhat biased here (unintentionally). A "higher" standard implies a greater quality or holier element. Instead, I prefer the the terms "strict" and "less strict."

Reading the other thread, I was thinking the same thing. I was thinking "narrow" and "broad".

Ironically, I've been to churches where I've worn a tie and felt out of place for it (...not just a tie, I wore other things as well, but felt as if I were far overdressed).

 

[Jerome]

Salty, consider this passage regarding "just at church" standards of dress and behavior:

I Tim. 2:9-12
In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.


Now we know women are to be muzzled at church (vv. 11,12), but in secular settings may instruct men. Likewise, the modest apparel (vv. 9,10) is a just at church thing too.

 

[StefanM]

Reading the other thread, I was thinking the same thing. I was thinking "narrow" and "broad".

Ironically, I've been to churches where I've worn a tie and felt out of place for it (...not just a tie, I wore other things as well, but felt as if I were far overdressed).

Your terms would also work. It needs to be something neutral. The term "higher standard" just seems to exude a sense of righteousness.

LOL @ your tie comment, and I've also been there. I didn't feel that out of place, but I did notice I was a bit overdressed.

 

[Van]

Nothing wrong with applying standards of decorum within the local church. Our grasp of standards is indeed flawed, some being more tolerant than others, with all being able to rationalize their view with the requirements of scripture.

If a man started undressing in the Sunday Morning service, he would be ejected, physically if necessary, and the police might be summoned.

The issue is not enforcing standards, it is in having standards that further rather than hinder the ministry of Christ.

 

[TCassidy]

"Fundamentalist" today has a different connotation for a lot of people.

Yes, due to the Neo-Orthodox-like tendency toward revisionism. The Neo-Orthodox use the same terms but apply different meanings to them. But words mean things. Fundamentalism is a belief in the fundamentals of the faith. Nothing more. It is only in the minds of the revisionists that it means "me, my wife, son John, his wife, us four and no more."

I refuse to allow the revisionists to steal good words from my vocabulary.

Fundamentalism is still a belief in the fundamentals.

Grass is still something you mow, not smoke.

Gay means lighthearted and carefree, and has nothing to do with sexual practices.

Sick means in ill health.

 

[Smyth]

In some churches, you would be ousted for allowing your wife to wear pants -even outside the church grounds.

Standards that apply in church also apply outside of church. The only difference is that Christians [no longer] have any influence to what people do outside of church. Christian no longer have freedom to choose not to support immoral behavior in others, outside of the walls of a church.

A person shouldn't dress as the opposite sex either inside or outside of church.

 

[StefanM]

Yes, due to the Neo-Orthodox-like tendency toward revisionism. The Neo-Orthodox use the same terms but apply different meanings to them. But words mean things. Fundamentalism is a belief in the fundamentals of the faith. Nothing more. It is only in the minds of the revisionists that it means "me, my wife, son John, his wife, us four and no more."

I refuse to allow the revisionists to steal good words from my vocabulary.

Fundamentalism is still a belief in the fundamentals.

Grass is still something you mow, not smoke.

Gay means lighthearted and carefree, and has nothing to do with sexual practices.

Sick means in ill health.

But language changes over time. It's inescapable, and it's why likely none of us could read Beowulf in Old English and few of us could make sense of Chaucer in Middle English. Shakespeare and the KJV in early Modern English are much closer to Modern English and are therefore easier to understand.

Part of language evolution is the change in meaning of terms. Semantic domains expand and contract, often unpredictably. We can't control that, and we can't control the connotations that a society applies to a term. Regionalisms also make a difference. To me, "fixin' to" is intelligible. To those outside the Southern US, it may not be.

My point is simply this--we can't change the way language develops. We may not like it, but it's not something we can control.

 

[StefanM]

Standards that apply in church also apply outside of church. The only difference is that Christians [no longer] have any influence to what people do outside of church. Christian no longer have freedom to choose not to support immoral behavior in others, outside of the walls of a church.

A person shouldn't dress as the opposite sex either inside or outside of church.

It depends on the standard. It's not appropriate to walk in with a pizza, wearing board shorts and a tank top, to crack open a soda and have a picnic in the middle of a service. (Maybe a fellowship meal!)

But that would be perfectly fine for a small group meeting at a person's home or for a family gathering.

Whether or not a standard is universal or contextual is key.

 

[TCassidy]

Part of language evolution is the change in meaning of terms.

Yes I know. There are two primary meanings assigned to a word. The etymological meaning and the philological meaning. The etymological meaning is based on the origin of the word, and the philological meaning is based on how the word is used in common conversion or writing.

We can't control that, and we can't control the connotations that a society applies to a term.

Yes, we can. We can refuse to allow a good word to be co-opted to mean something exactly the opposite of its intended meaning. If we don't insist on such rigor we would all be speaking ghetto slang.

My point is simply this--we can't change the way language develops. We may not like it, but it's not something we can control.

Yes, we not only can, we must. And one of the ways to do that is, every time a word is used in a neo-orthodox manner, correct the speaker or writer.

 

[StefanM]

Yes I know. There are two primary meanings assigned to a word. The etymological meaning and the philological meaning. The etymological meaning is based on the origin of the word, and the philological meaning is based on how the word is used in common conversion or writing.

Yes, we can. We can refuse to allow a good word to be co-opted to mean something exactly the opposite of its intended meaning. If we don't insist on such rigor we would all be speaking ghetto slang.

Yes, we not only can, we must. And one of the ways to do that is, every time a word is used in a neo-orthodox manner, correct the speaker or writer.

We can TRY to stop it, and we might be successful in some cases. Nevertheless, I think your examples are ones in which you won't be able to recover the original meanings. The "damage" has already been done.

 

[TCassidy]

The "damage" has already been done.

I refuse to comply.

 

[StefanM]

I refuse to comply.

That's your choice!

 

[Squire Robertsson]

What we have here a a matter of historical differences. For the most part, the SBC did not involve themselves with the Fundamentalist movement. As I understand the situation, one bone of contention was the inter/non denominational flavor of the movement. So, the SBC battled Modernism in its ranks separately from the battles fought in other organizations.

 

[JamesL]

Then you have never seen real, historic, fundamentalism.....The alternative to marrying a fundamentalist would be to marry either an unbeliever or a Theologically Liberal Modernist.

as I noted, from what I have seen there is fundamentalist with a lower-case f and Fundamentalist with a capital F

Lower case fundamentalism relates to the fundamentals of the faith

Upper case Fundamentalism = Westboro Baptist, wacky, legalistic, fringe fanatic.