Fundamentalists abstaining from the appearance of evil?

[1689Dave]

Then why deny it?

They said "fundamentalism" appears as evil because of Middle Eastern fundamentalism dominating the headlines.

What people?

It would depend on who you are around. I don't tell people I'm anything but Christian. Which I believe Paul would endorse when he condemns following men instead of Christ. Creeds = following men, but they are useful if they remain in their proper place.

What evil is associated with Christian fundamentalism?

It depends on who you are around. The word unnecessarily conjures up evil connotations in the media.

How is Christian fundamentalism linked to eastern fanaticism? And which of the 5 fundamentals do they consider "extremism?"

If the media would place disclaimers every time they mention "fundamentalism", saying this is not true of "Christian Fundamentalism", it might not drive people away. But this particular church removed the term "fundamental" from their marquee thinking it did more harm than good.

Thanks for sharing your views. I always wondered how other Fundamentalists would react.

 

[Reformed]

Of course it is. That is what the term is all about.

What does that have to do with the fundamentals of the faith?

Not a fundamental.

Not a fundamental.

Not a fundamental.

Not a fundamental.

Not a fundamental.

None of them have anything to do with fundamentalism.

The fundamentals are the same everywhere in the world.

That wasn't fundamentalism.

But they call themselves Fundamentalists. If you visit a church that has "IFB" on their church sign and they espouse the things I detailed in my last post, what is your opinion going to be about IFB churches? I did not say my experience is indicative of all IFB churches (I made that clear). I know more than a few pastors who refuse to refer to their church as a fundamentalist church precisely because of the baggage they believe comes with the term. What they are basically saying is, "I know what the fundamentals of the faith are, but it is not the same as Fundamentalism." Please do not take this as a criticism of your church or your experience. It is not meant to be that.

 

[Yeshua1]

But they call themselves Fundamentalists. If you visit a church that has "IFB" on their church sign and they espouse the things I detailed in my last post, what is your opinion going to be about IFB churches? I did not say my experience is indicative of all IFB churches (I made that clear). I know more than a few pastors who refuse to refer to their church as a fundamentalist church precisely because of the baggage they believe comes with the term. What they are basically saying is, "I know what the fundamentals of the faith are, but it is not the same as Fundamentalism." Please do not take this as a criticism of your church or your experience. It is not meant to be that.

My church is called Stony Creek Church, and we are associated with the Great Lakes Baptist Fellowship, but we decided to not use Baptist in ourt name, due to bad feelings about that term!

 

[rlvaughn]

Years ago my IFB church removed "Fundamental" from the church marquee. The reason? The board did not want to become associated with Middle Eastern fundamentalism. And though it best to identify the Church as First Baptist only. Was this sound judgement? If so, what other appearances of evil should we disassociate ourselves from. Politicians? Service Clubs? Masons? Etc., etc?

We don't use "Fundamental" in our church name or on our church sign (never have). If we did I would not find the above reasoning compelling for such a change.

First of all, I agree with Brother Cassidy that this is a misunderstanding of the meaning of 1 Thessalonians 5:22. The idea is not to avoid every thing that might appear/seem to be evil to someone, but to avoid evil in whatever shape it appears. The misunderstanding will leave us exhausted, running in circles chasing our tails. It chains us as slaves to the perceptions of others. Now, I believe there are times we need to consider what we are at liberty to do that is seen by our brothers & sisters as sinful (1 Corinthians 8 provides a good example of this). We need not wet our fingers to stick in the wind of the world to find our directions.

Second, considering the interpretation of 1 Thessalonians 5:22, then I would place the dis-associations of the later things based on whether they appear in a shape of evil. I'd stay that would fit with some politicians! We consider the overall theory of Freemasonry to be rooted in a works-based system of salvation, so we avoid it in our church membership. Not sure about service clubs. You mean like being a member of the Kiwanis? Rotary? Lions? Etc.?

 

[TCassidy]

But they call themselves Fundamentalists.

I can call myself a horse but I still only have two legs.

If you visit a church that has "IFB" on their church sign and they espouse the things I detailed in my last post, what is your opinion going to be about IFB churches?

If a man self identifies as a woman are you going to dislike all women, including your wife?

I know more than a few pastors who refuse to refer to their church as a fundamentalist church precisely because of the baggage they believe comes with the term.

Do they also refuse to refer to themselves as men because some mentally ill woman thinks she is a man?

What they are basically saying is, "I know what the fundamentals of the faith are, but it is not the same as Fundamentalism."

I know what makes me a man but it is not the same as what makes me a man.

Sounds kind of stupid when put that way, doesn't it?

My whole point is that the redefinition of historic words is a revisionist ploy of Neo-Orthodoxy. They were famous for using the same words Evangelicals use but changing what they meant to themselves. Thus the virgin birth was not really virgin, the Deity of Christ as not actual Deity, and the Resurrection of Christ was not really a Resurrection.

And fundamentals are not really fundamentals and fundamentalism is not really fundamentalism.

I refuse to allow the radical left to redefine the words in my vocabulary.

To me, Gay still means lighthearted and carefree.

Grass is still something you mow, not something you smoke.

"Dope" is your goofy neighbor, not street drugs.

And "fundamentalist" is still a Christian who believes the fundamentals of the faith.

 

[TCassidy]

in the media.

It looks to me as if you are allowing the media to do your thinking for you.

If the media

And there you did it again.

That appears to be evil to me. Maybe you better stop doing that.

 

[TCassidy]

My church is called Stony Creek Church, and we are associated with the Great Lakes Baptist Fellowship, but we decided to not use Baptist in ourt name, due to bad feelings about that term!

My church is called First Church of the Moonbeam, and we are associated with the Christian Moonbeam Association, but we decided to not use Christian in our name, due to bad feelings about that term!

So. We are no longer fundamentalists. Somebody might be offended.

We are no longer Baptists. Somebody might be offended.

We are no longer Christians. Somebody might be offended.

 

[Reformed]

I can call myself a horse but I still only have two legs.

If a man self identifies as a woman are you going to dislike all women, including your wife?

Do they also refuse to refer to themselves as men because some mentally ill woman thinks she is a man?

I know what makes me a man but it is not the same as what makes me a man.

Sounds kind of stupid when put that way, doesn't it?

My whole point is that the redefinition of historic words is a revisionist ploy of Neo-Orthodoxy. They were famous for using the same words Evangelicals use but changing what they meant to themselves. Thus the virgin birth was not really virgin, the Deity of Christ as not actual Deity, and the Resurrection of Christ was not really a Resurrection.

And fundamentals are not really fundamentals and fundamentalism is not really fundamentalism.

I refuse to allow the radical left to redefine the words in my vocabulary.

To me, Gay still means lighthearted and carefree.

Grass is still something you mow, not something you smoke.

"Dope" is your goofy neighbor, not street drugs.

And "fundamentalist" is still a Christian who believes the fundamentals of the faith.

Tom,

I understand. I used to consider myself an Evangelical, but the term has been so diluted by neo-evangelicals that its meaning is misinterpreted by many.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

My church is called First Church of the Moonbeam, and we are associated with the Christian Moonbeam Association, but we decided to not use Christian in our name, due to bad feelings about that term!

So. We are no longer fundamentalists. Somebody might be offended.

We are no longer Baptists. Somebody might be offended.

We are no longer Christians. Somebody might be offended.

How about calling ourselves plain ole Christians then?

 

[HankD]

I see both sides (Well, of course I'm a Mugwump).

Yes the term "fundamentalist" has an association with radical Islam.

however I am a Christian Fundamentalist and I don't have the smallest inkling to chop off someone's head (although I will protect my family from those who do want to chop off heads).

 

[HankD]

PB I am aware of, but Jewish roots?

Google it.

it's a strange beast, an offshoot of Armstrongism. Modern Judaizers who deny the deity of Christ

 

[Felipe Rios]

Years ago my IFB church removed "Fundamental" from the church marquee. The reason? The board did not want to become associated with Middle Eastern fundamentalism. And though it best to identify the Church as First Baptist only. Was this sound judgement? If so, what other appearances of evil should we disassociate ourselves from. Politicians? Service Clubs? Masons? Etc., etc?

Nothing wrong with that.

 

[TCassidy]

I understand. I used to consider myself an Evangelical, but the term has been so diluted by neo-evangelicals that its meaning is misinterpreted by many.

This may require a whole new discussion. In my (not entirely) humble opinion most Christians of the fundamentalist persuasion don't have a clue what Neo-Evangelicalism actually is.

My professor, mentor, and friend, Dr. George W. Dollar (he was Dean of Faculty my last year at Central and we remained in contact right up to his death) said in his book "A History of Fundamentalism in America" that fundamentalism could be divided into three parts.

#1 Militant Fundamentalism: Those who militantly exposed error in both doctrine and practice.

#2 Moderate Fundamentalism: Those who believe the same above errors were wrong but did not militantly expose those errors or those who taught them.

#3 Modified Fundamentalism: Those who not only fellowshipped with those in error, but also approved of those errors.

The last, #3, are the only ones who could rightly be called "Neo-Evangelical." But bear in mind they were still fundamentalists!

The man who coined the term "Neo-Evangelical" was Harold J. Ockenga who, in 1947, speaking at a Convocation Address at Fuller Seminary encouraged direct engagement with the culture and cooperation with other, Liberal (Modernist), Christian groups. My uncle, Kenneth Kantzer, added fuel to the fire by saying, the name fundamentalist had become “an embarrassment instead of a badge of honor."

However, today, it is "Neo-Evangelicalism" that has become an embarrassment to Christendom.

Harold Ockenga, in a Christianity Today editorial titled, "Resurgent Evangelical Leadership,” wrote, "Evangelical theology is synonymous with fundamentalism or orthodoxy. In doctrine the evangelicals and the fundamentalists are one."

However, "Neo" or "New" Evangelicalism had some serious problems.

While reaffirming the theological view of fundamentalism, Ockenga's address at Fuller, repudiated the ecclesiology of fundamentalism, repudiated its social theory in favor of the social gospel, and the separation from the apostasy taking hold in most of the mainline denominations

He went on to explain that the "Neo-Evangelicalism" would reexamine "theological problems" such as the age of man, the flood of Noah, God's means of creation and other such "problems.” (Ockenga, foreword to Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible).

So, even "Neo-Evangelicalism" is fundamental in its theology.

Again, it may just be a function of my age, but I will resist to my death the revisionism of established theological terms in favor of the media's butchering of those terms for their own purposes.

Fundamentalism is, simply put, orthodoxy. It seems to me that to repudiate fundamentalism is to repudiate orthodoxy.

 

[TCassidy]

How about calling ourselves plain ole Christians then?

You obviously didn't read the last line of my post you were responding to.

 

[JonC]

If they are no longer "Fundamental" they no longer believe the fundamentals of the faith once delivered. Looks like the road to apostasy to me.

The problem is how some define these fundamentals and how they exercise "judgment" (and who they are judging).

Most churches where I live would find it offensive to be considered a "fundamental" Baptist church. The only church I know of here is the one across town. Two summers ago a group of adults were out witnessing. They were walking the block around the church yelling at the children wearing shorts, telling them they were going to Hell for their manner of dress (one was the daughter of a friend). There are areas where "fundamental" is more associated with hate than with Christ, and rightly so.

At the same time, most of these churches would also affirm the fundamentals of our faith. They would just be Baptists (with the better ones being Southern Baptists ).

 

[TCassidy]

The problem is how some define these fundamentals and how they exercise "judgment" (and who they are judging).

Most churches where I live would find it offensive to be considered a "fundamental" Baptist church. The only church I know of here is the one across town. Two summers ago a group of adults were out witnessing. They were walking the block around the church yelling at the children wearing shorts, telling them they were going to Hell for their manner of dress (one was the daughter of a friend). There are areas where "fundamental" is more associated with hate than with Christ, and rightly so.

At the same time, most of these churches would also affirm the fundamentals of our faith. They would just be Baptists (with the better ones being Southern Baptists ).

Completely irrelevant. None of that has anything to do with the fundamentals or what fundamentalism is about.

If we abandon everything that somebody, somewhere, misunderstands and/or misuses then all of Christendom is down the tubes and Christ lied when He said "the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

 

[Reformed]

.........

 

[Reformed]

......

I deleted my comments because I do not want to judge motives.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

They might not allow officially documented membership since they are eternally secure Arminian Dispensationalists. But they do not practice closed communion. And the general tone of preaching is not doctrinal and bent more towards abstinence and separation.

I wouldn’t even enter the door

 

[JonC]

Completely irrelevant. None of that has anything to do with the fundamentals or what fundamentalism is about.

If we abandon everything that somebody, somewhere, misunderstands and/or misuses then all of Christendom is down the tubes and Christ lied when He said "the gates of hell will not prevail against it."

But it does have something to do with how one is perceived. So the question is whether a church name is to convey meaning to the church or to those outside the church. If the former, then perhaps it would be a mistake to remove "fundamental". If the latter, perhaps not.

An example would be on the Baptist use of "catholic" to refer to itself. This wouldn't do today, not because belief has changed but because of word association.