Fundamentalism, How to describe it

[John of Japan]

The pastor that ordained me would often counter challenges with the "don't go up against God's man" or "Touch not my anointed." He would also say, "People who believe that get divorced." Sadly, his wife had an affair and he ended up divorced. I have prayed they would reconcile, but it would be a miracle since like many IFBs that adultery is an automatic divorce ticket. Marriages have overcome such things. I often wonder how many people are living in adultery because wanted to restore the marriage and some pastors and all of the friends of the betrayed misused a text making divorce mandatory and it was OK to remarry.

That's a lot of sadness.

 

[John of Japan]

Again, you are the only one talking about "theological legalism". That is not what people charge IFB with. They use the "popular definition" (the definition you said I was using). I do understand why you view legalism as offensive. But the reason is you are defining the word different from what non-IFB are saying. Nobody, that I know of, is calling IFB churches theologically legalistic. People are using the "popular definition", the dictionary definition. And, for my part, I said this does not apply to IFB churches as a whole but only my experience with IFB churches.

Okay. But not my experience, and certainly not the church I am in now.

Do you believe it is holding a standard with love to yell at a 7 year old girl that she is going to Hell for wearing shorts? I say that is legalism.

Absolutely wrong. This incident fits the theological definition of legalism, because it assigns a moral equivalent to clothing. That is exactly theological legalism. So I'm thinking you still don't understand what I've been trying to say.

Furthermore, I was never in a fundamental al church that evangelizes that way. My grandfather, a leader among fundamentalists for 50 years, always signed his Bible with Psalm 126:5-6, "5 They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. 6 He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him." We believe in compassion in soul winning, not judgment. Furthermore, he preached that if a man can preach on Hell without weeping, he is backslidden.

This is some of what I believe about how we are to dress:

1 Timothy 2:9-10 - likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

1 Peter 3:3-4 - Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious


If Scripture commanded men to wear a suit and tie (or attire the world associates with success) then it would be different.

Do I care what people wear to worship God or to listen to the gosoel message? No.

We have some in suits. Thats great. Some are in jeans snd a shirt, some shorts. Thats great.
I am more concerned that they come.

Now I'm attending a different type of church (one in the community, meeting at a school to reach out to the lost and the unchurched Christians). So this is less an issue as most have no suit to wear.

I haven't said a thing about clothing, so I'm surprised you are bringing it up. Where I minister, we never rebuke folks for their clothing, and the pastor never preaches on it. But folks gradually figure out that we believe in respecting God's house with what we wear, without ever being told. But some continue to come in their own idea of what to wear in church, and that's fine too.

OK.

When you get a chance I have another question.

What is the appropriate term for churches applying onto people standards of dress that they do not hold, apart from biblical standards stated in Scripture (head coverings, women not to wear expensive clothes or jewlery)?


Another aspect we have not discussed is age demographics with changes in culture.

At one time it was common for men to wear a suit and tie when in public. At one time it was common dress for professionals. But now is not that time. I work in the nuclear field. At one time a nuclear engineer and nuclear physicist would be expected to wear at least a coat and tie. Now the engineers wear jeans and a polo while the physicist wears kakis and a polo.

What I mean is one person's sence of dressing appropriately may be another's puffery. Wearing a suit may be one person's idea of appropriate dress while another may feel he is putting on airs. We need to worship in spirit and in truth. What may facilitate worship for one may hinder worship for another.

A suit and tie may not have the same association for every generation.



Last question (for now....I'm always full of questions):

You see two women at church.
One is wearing a nice dress, a gold necklace and pearl earrings.
The other is wearing blue jeans and a plain t-shirt.

Which is dressed modestly per the Biblical standard of modesty?
Which is dressed appropriately per the "Evangelical" standard you mentioned?

Most of this I answered in the above post. As for the two women, this exactly fits what James said in James 2:1-3. So what do you expect me to say. Did you think, perhaps, that I didn't know that passage?

And stop putting words into my mouth. I never said a word about clothing until you did. I never said a thing about "evangelical clothing," so I don't know where you got that. It's not important to me.

 

[JonC]

Okay. But not my experience, and certainly not the church I am in now.

Absolutely wrong. This incident fits the theological definition of legalism, because it assigns a moral equivalent to clothing. That is exactly theological legalism. So I'm thinking you still don't understand what I've been trying to say.

No, I perfectly understand theological legalism and the "dictionary" definition.

Theological legalism is salvation or justification by works (do this and that and you are saved, righteous, or justified).

Like I stated several times, those equating fundamentalism with legalism are using the "popular definition".

I agree that in my experience what I have observed of fundamentalism in most of the IFB churches I have encountered is theogical legalism, but that was not my point. Anyway, glad we agree

And stop putting words into my mouth. I never said a word about clothing until you did. I never said a thing about "evangelical clothing," so I don't know where you got that. It's not important to meme.

Of course you didn't. You were responding to my post about what I called legalism and you called theological legalism.

I am not sure what you mean by "evangelical clothing". I simply said that you indicated that wearing a suit and tie is "what evangelicalism used to be" and the belief that a man can attend church without wearing a suit and tie is "an invention of the New Evangelicals".

If you mean my using a different word, I already told you my phone filled that in (auto correct, using my phone and not a computer).

But here is where I got that idea (correct me if I misunderstood your post.

4. If you think it's fine to go to church without a suit, or women wearing pants, etc., fine, but that is not what evangelicalism used to be. It's an invention of the New Evangelicals. At our church, anyone can wear almost anything, but they gradually learn what we believe honors God.

I haven't said a thing about clothing, so I'm surprised you are bringing it up.

You shouldn't have been surprised as I explained that (what you affirmed as theological legalism but I simply left as legalism, of which theological legalism is a type) was what I experienced and formed my opinion, an opinion I freely admit is not true of the entire denomination.

Look, @John of Japan , I do not question your expetiences. If you believe I am lying about what I have experienced then just say so. You won't hurt my feelings, and I prefer plain speech. But don't pretend I was speaking of you, your church, or your experience.

I was answering the OP and explaining why I have that opinion of IFB churches while actively knowing that opinion is not accurate of the whole denomination.

 

[Aaron]

Nobody.

They knew by nature. Some things not even God has to say directly. Once they're eyes were opened, they were ashamed and covered themselves. Appeals to 'culture' and to the lack of direct verbatims and shifting the problem to those who call out the indecency is only a pretense of spirituality.

Nobody dresses up for God when they go to church. All things are naked and opened unto His eyes. And no one dresses for himself. In church and in public, we dress for others. In some respects, even for the angels among us.

 

[John of Japan]

No, I perfectly understand theological legalism and the "dictionary" definition.

Theological legalism is salvation or justification by works (do this and that and you are saved, righteous, or justified).

Like I stated several times, those equating fundamentalism with legalism are using the "popular definition".

I agree that in my experience what I have observed of fundamentalism in most of the IFB churches I have encountered is theogical legalism, but that was not my point. Anyway, glad we agree

Okay, done with that.

Of course you didn't. You were responding to my post about what I called legalism and you called theological legalism.

I am not sure what you mean by "evangelical clothing". I simply said that you indicated that wearing a suit and tie is "what evangelicalism used to be" and the belief that a man can attend church without wearing a suit and tie is "an invention of the New Evangelicals".

There's no such thing as "evangelical clothing." That wasn't my meaning. I simply meant evangelical used to think it was good to wear decent clothing to church to honor the Lord. And I don't think I ever said anything about casual clothing to church being "an invention of the New Evangelicals." What the NE's did was oppose what they thought were the overly strict standards of fundamentalists. That was one of the two main points of NE: reject the strict standards of fundamentalism (which used to be across the board for all evangelicals), and "infiltrate" liberalism.

If you mean my using a different word, I already told you my phone filled that in (auto correct, using my phone and not a computer).

But here is where I got that idea (correct me if I misunderstood your post.

I hate AI and "autocorrect."

You shouldn't have been surprised as I explained that (what you affirmed as theological legalism but I simply left as legalism, of which theological legalism is a type) was what I experienced and formed my opinion, an opinion I freely admit is not true of the entire denomination.

Look, @John of Japan , I do not question your expetiences. If you believe I am lying about what I have experienced then just say so. You won't hurt my feelings, and I prefer plain speech. But don't pretend I was speaking of you, your church, or your experience.

I was answering the OP and explaining why I have that opinion of IFB churches while actively knowing that opinion is not accurate of the whole denomination.

I would never say you were lying. Mistaken, yes, lying, no.

 

[Ben1445]

They knew by nature. Some things not even God has to say directly. Once they're eyes were opened, they were ashamed and covered themselves. Appeals to 'culture' and to the lack of direct verbatims and shifting the problem to those who call out the indecency is only a pretense of spirituality.

Nobody dresses up for God when they go to church. All things are naked and opened unto His eyes. And no one dresses for himself. In church and in public, we dress for others. In some respects, even for the angels among us.

Some good points here.
I would only say that man is not reliable when it comes to doing what is right.
Judges 17:6
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Of course, depending on who you talk to, we are all under King Trump.
But outside of that people generally do whatever they want, especially where there is no law concerning the subject.
In sum, an appeal to the often seared conscience of man to be trustworthy is laughable. Not without understanding, just callous.
Adam and Eve knew the garden. Adam walked with God in the garden. He had a different point of reference than anyone else.

 

[Salty]

Of course, depending on who you talk to, we are all under King Trump.

Why the term "King Trump"?

 

[JonC]

Okay, done with that.

There's no such thing as "evangelical clothing." That wasn't my meaning. I simply meant evangelical used to think it was good to wear decent clothing to church to honor the Lord. And I don't think I ever said anything about casual clothing to church being "an invention of the New Evangelicals." What the NE's did was oppose what they thought were the overly strict standards of fundamentalists. That was one of the two main points of NE: reject the strict standards of fundamentalism (which used to be across the board for all evangelicals), and "infiltrate" liberalism.

I hate AI and "autocorrect."

I would never say you were lying. Mistaken, yes, lying, no.

I believe we should have strict standards about the fundamentals.

I also believe we should wear decent clothing to church (and in public, for that matter).

At one time a suit and tie was the standard for dressing nice. Blue jeans were work clothes (wearing jeans in public, other than working in the field or factory, was in poor taste). This was a bit before my time. I grew up wearing a suit and tie to church, but jeans were not considered indecent in public.

It is odd, but I jave noticed double standards when it comes to dress.

A 60+ year old man wearing a suit and tie to church is considered normal, but a 25 year old man doing so is sometimes viewed as putting on airs. A 25 year old wearing decent jeans or shorts and a nice T-shirt to church is considered normal, but a 60+ year old man doing so is considered pandering to a younger generation.

My son wore jogging shorts and a t-shirt to church last Sunday. But he breaks down the equipment and loads it in a trailer (they hold church in a school, and it was 90+ degrees). He prefers a nice pair of shorts or jeans and a nicer shirt. That was the 1st time I got to attend the church. I think I was the oldest guy there and I'm 56 years old). It os a church plant, trying to reach the community with the gospel. They have been there about 4 months, now they have about 50 members, most seem to be under 35 years old. A lot of new Christians. Nobody wore suits. I saw a lot of Christian t-shirts. But no suits. That said, everybody was dressed decently.


I think I asked before, and if you answered I missed it (sorry), but why a suit and tie?

I mean, where does the idea originate that decent dress, that dress respectful to God, is a suit and tie ?

They knew by nature. Some things not even God has to say directly. Once they're eyes were opened, they were ashamed and covered themselves. Appeals to 'culture' and to the lack of direct verbatims and shifting the problem to those who call out the indecency is only a pretense of spirituality.

Nobody dresses up for God when they go to church. All things are naked and opened unto His eyes. And no one dresses for himself. In church and in public, we dress for others. In some respects, even for the angels among us.

Yep. Their eyes were opened.

I agree that we are to dress decently when in public. I think that this can actually be ascertained from Scripture.

My argument was not that we should not require decency.

I agree that nobody really dresses up for God when they go to church.
I agree that when people dress up they do so for other people, hence the term "dress to impress".

There are two points I am making:

1. One can dress decently in a suit, in jeans and a t-shirt, in shorts and a shirt. They can dressing an indecent manner as well (I have seen indecent suits, and ties, indecent jeans, shorts, and t-shirts).

2. Scripture gives a few standards (very few), but includes not wearing expensive clothes, jewlery, etc. as modesty.


What I have seen is people looking favorably on a woman in an expensive dress, a designer handbag, and expensive jewlery while looking unfavorably on a woman wearing decent jeans and a decent shirt. In other words, they appreciate the one who is not modest and look down in the modest.

 

[Salty]

Gary, I suppose if I were in the position that your son is- I would dress up for church, then when it was time for breakdown, I would put my work clothes.! But thats me. I am of the old timers thinking - if you dress up for a wedding......

But your post reminded me of a story over in Germany. A local Baptist church had a Christian school. They had a certain standard for the students. Ok - fine. Well, one student had a job after school that required him to wear over halls. Well, to save time one day, he changed his clothes in the the boys bathroom. Well, a teacher saw him in his work clothes -in the church building - so he was written up for not wearing proper clothing in the school bldg (Yes, that was an IFB church)

 

[John of Japan]

I believe we should have strict standards about the fundamentals.

I also believe we should wear decent clothing to church (and in public, for that matter).

At one time a suit and tie was the standard for dressing nice. Blue jeans were work clothes (wearing jeans in public, other than working in the field or factory, was in poor taste). This was a bit before my time. I grew up wearing a suit and tie to church, but jeans were not considered indecent in public.

It is odd, but I jave noticed double standards when it comes to dress.

A 60+ year old man wearing a suit and tie to church is considered normal, but a 25 year old man doing so is sometimes viewed as putting on airs. A 25 year old wearing decent jeans or shorts and a nice T-shirt to church is considered normal, but a 60+ year old man doing so is considered pandering to a younger generation.

My son wore jogging shorts and a t-shirt to church last Sunday. But he breaks down the equipment and loads it in a trailer (they hold church in a school, and it was 90+ degrees). He prefers a nice pair of shorts or jeans and a nicer shirt. That was the 1st time I got to attend the church. I think I was the oldest guy there and I'm 56 years old). It os a church plant, trying to reach the community with the gospel. They have been there about 4 months, now they have about 50 members, most seem to be under 35 years old. A lot of new Christians. Nobody wore suits. I saw a lot of Christian t-shirts. But no suits. That said, everybody was dressed decently.


I think I asked before, and if you answered I missed it (sorry), but why a suit and tie?

I mean, where does the idea originate that decent dress, that dress respectful to God, is a suit and tie ?

I don't believe I said on this thread anything about a suit and tie. I wear a suit and tie to church because I'm on the staff of the college the church has. But I don't believe a suit and tie are necessary for the typical church goer. Some of our deacons just wear a collar shirt, and I'm fine with that. But unless necessary for some reason (your son, I suppose), I think T's, shorts and the like reflect negatively on our Lord when worn to church. I would never wear such garb to see the President, or even for an appointment with the president of a company. Are they more important than our Lord? But in my over fifty years of ministry in two different countries, I have never once rebuked anyone for their dress in any situation. Just not my job.

Whatever we wear any time, it should not reflect negatively on our Lord and Savior. So, modesty, some dignity, etc. I once saw a guy in Tokyo with a hat patterned after an elephant head. It looked absolutely ridiculous! I took his literature, but he refused my tract. Turned out he was a member of what used to be called "Aum Shinrikyo," the terrorist cult that spread sarin gas in the subways of Tokyo in 1995, killing 13 and injuring 1000s. I was on a train through Tokyo the day after that attack, missing the event by a day, thank the Lord. That day there was a scare in Yokohama Station, but I heard nothing about that until I was home. God watches over the clueless.

On the other hand, the JWs and Mormons always dress nicely when doing their "ministry." Ponder on that.

 

[JonC]

I don't believe I said on this thread anything about a suit and tie. I wear a suit and tie to church because I'm on the staff of the college the church has. But I don't believe a suit and tie are necessary for the typical church goer. Some of our deacons just wear a collar shirt, and I'm fine with that. But unless necessary for some reason (your son, I suppose), I think T's, shorts and the like reflect negatively on our Lord when worn to church. I would never wear such garb to see the President, or even for an appointment with the president of a company. Are they more important than our Lord? But in my over fifty years of ministry in two different countries, I have never once rebuked anyone for their dress in any situation. Just not my job.

Whatever we wear any time, it should not reflect negatively on our Lord and Savior. So, modesty, some dignity, etc. I once saw a guy in Tokyo with a hat patterned after an elephant head. It looked absolutely ridiculous! I took his literature, but he refused my tract. Turned out he was a member of what used to be called "Aum Shinrikyo," the terrorist cult that spread sarin gas in the subways of Tokyo in 1995, killing 13 and injuring 1000s. I was on a train through Tokyo the day after that attack, missing the event by a day, thank the Lord. That day there was a scare in Yokohama Station, but I heard nothing about that until I was home. God watches over the clueless.

On the other hand, the JWs and Mormons always dress nicely when doing their "ministry." Ponder on that.

You did not say that we have to wear a suit (or women wearing a dress), I agree. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment that wearing a suit and tie is "what evangelicalism used to be" and noot doing so is "invention of the New Evangelicals". If I misunderstood, my apologies.

The issue I have is cultural changes. Wearing a suit and tie is no longer the cultural equivalent of "decent" or "respectful" clothing. It os with some generations, but not in our culture as a whole.


Here is an example...a t-shirt that I like.




Now, the shirt is modest. It is decent. It is $800.00, but does not present as extravagant. It is well made and will last for years.


Granted, most at the church I attend (most below 30 years old) wear a Christian t-shirt, but no less decent.

Judging decency by our own standards is fine, until we start imposing that on other people. That is all I am saying.


When I was at a church in Kyoto they dressed in jeans and a collard shirt or t-shirt. I got the impression that they were welcoming and concerned with the gospel rather than outward appearances, worrying about what to wear.


@John of Japan , I am genuinely asking this....you said that wearing a suit and tie to church is "what evangelicalism used to be" and not doing so is "invention of the New Evangelicals".

Why a suit and tie rather than jeans and a shirt?

My answer is culture, and at that time wearing a suit was culturally acceptable while jeans were thought of as casual (they are no longer casual), and before that as work attire not to be worn in public (in the 60's young men did as a type of rebellion, but sometimes because that was what they had).

So why a suit and tie, or dress for women, or even collard shirt, as a standard for dressing at church?

I was curious, waiting to go to work, and did a little research.

Suits snd ties became the standard for public attire in the 19th century.
This started changing in the 20's but was revitalized after WW2.
Ultimately this changed again in the 1980's with the rise of "business casual"
Business casual was then replaced by "smart casual"

Today professional attire has shifted from suits to nice jeans and a t-shirt.
The tech industry is credited with influencing cultural norms regarding dress.
Even collard shirts are considered a bit too dressy by some.

Suits and ties, however, are still considered the standard in financial occupations.

I believe this can also be seen as a generational issue.

I prefer collard shirts at work (I want a pocket, and the colkar keros the lanyard off my neck). But I am the only person who wears a collard shirt on my shift. At first several mentioned this (noting "nobody" wears collard shirts). I let them know that I'm old enough to be their father.

 

[John of Japan]

You did not say that we have to wear a suit (or women wearing a dress), I agree. Perhaps I misunderstood your comment that wearing a suit and tie is "what evangelicalism used to be" and noot doing so is "invention of the New Evangelicals". If I misunderstood, my apologies.

I was speaking historically, trying to help you or other readers understand what happened to evangelicalism in the 1950s. To me knowing that history explains a lot about the movement in 2025.

The issue I have is cultural changes. Wearing a suit and tie is no longer the cultural equivalent of "decent" or "respectful" clothing. It os with some generations, but not in our culture as a whole.


Here is an example...a t-shirt that I like.

View attachment 11656


Now, the shirt is modest. It is decent. It is $800.00, but does not present as extravagant. It is well made and will last for years.

You must be kidding. A T shirt for $800???

Granted, most at the church I attend (most below 30 years old) wear a Christian t-shirt, but no less decent.

See, I can't understand this. We're going to go our different directions on this, and never agree. To me, someone who wears a T shirt to church is not being serious about it. I wear a T shirt to the beach, a park, etc. But to church? No way. That's disrespectful to the Lord. But you do your thing and I'll do mine, and I don't mind what you do.

Judging decency by our own standards is fine, until we start imposing that on other people. That is all I am saying.

Look back. I have not imposed anything on anybody for 50 years.

When I was at a church in Kyoto they dressed in jeans and a collard shirt or t-shirt. I got the impression that they were welcoming and concerned with the gospel rather than outward appearances, worrying about what to wear.

That's very surprising to me, and I would be surprised if that were now the norm in Japanese churches. I had men saved out of the yakuza (Japanese mafia) who always dressed nicely in church.

@John of Japan , I am genuinely asking this....you said that wearing a suit and tie to church is "what evangelicalism used to be" and not doing so is "invention of the New Evangelicals".

Why a suit and tie rather than jeans and a shirt?

My answer is culture, and at that time wearing a suit was culturally acceptable while jeans were thought of as casual (they are no longer casual), and before that as work attire not to be worn in public (in the 60's young men did as a type of rebellion, but sometimes because that was what they had).

So why a suit and tie, or dress for women, or even collard shirt, as a standard for dressing at church?

Forgive me, but you seem to be obsessing over this. It's no big deal to me. If you came to my church in a T, I would say nothing, and no other staff member would say anything. We're a very friendly church, everyone says, and very non-judgmental. People sense the Holy Spirit when they come, no matter what they wear. So please stop making a big deal about it.

 

[Aaron]

People just know

 

[JonC]

I was speaking historically, trying to help you or other readers understand what happened to evangelicalism in the 1950s. To me knowing that history explains a lot about the movement in 2025.

You must be kidding. A T shirt for $800???

See, I can't understand this. We're going to go our different directions on this, and never agree. To me, someone who wears a T shirt to church is not being serious about it. I wear a T shirt to the beach, a park, etc. But to church? No way. That's disrespectful to the Lord. But you do your thing and I'll do mine, and I don't mind what you do.

Look back. I have not imposed anything on anybody for 50 years.

That's very surprising to me, and I would be surprised if that were now the norm in Japanese churches. I had men saved out of the yakuza (Japanese mafia) who always dressed nicely in church.

Forgive me, but you seem to be obsessing over this. It's no big deal to me. If you came to my church in a T, I would say nothing, and no other staff member would say anything. We're a very friendly church, everyone says, and very non-judgmental. People sense the Holy Spirit when they come, no matter what they wear. So please stop making a big deal about it.

Yea....I wouldn't pay that much for a t-shirt. I'd pay $75 at most.

But you make a good point. While you would onky wear a t-shirt to a beach and such it is now appropriate professional attire. Times change. There has always been generational gaps and this is one.

I am not obsessing, just thinking about a few issues regarding a church plant and voicing thoughts that come to my brilliant mind.

I will pm you a link to the service I attended. You might find it interesting (not the dress but the faith growing in that area).

 

[Salty]

Well, this just proves the old adage
get a dozen Baptists together and you have 15 opinions!

 

[JonC]

Well, this just proves the old adage
get a dozen Baptists together and you have 15 opinions!

And outfits!!!

 

[Salty]

And outfits!!!

I was talking to a pastor near Pulaski, VA; He told me that after he first arrived - the ladies could not understand why the pastors wife had - maybe a dozen outfits - but most of them only 2 or 3!

 

[JonC]

I was talking to a pastor near Pulaski, VA; He told me that after he first arrived - the ladies could not understand why the pastors wife had - maybe a dozen outfits - but most of them only 2 or 3!

I think my contemplation about joining this church plant - community church has made me think more about these things.

The church meets at a school on Sunday and various places in the community throughout the week. Not owning a building keeps them closer to the community, and I believe the mission of the church.

I am not sure that this would be possible were they to enact dress codes that exclude clothes people normally wear. It is about the people, not their background, race, clothes, etc.