Attitutudinal Issues

The point is no legalist recognizes or acknowledges their own legalism. That is one of the defining marks of legalism. Most try and redefine legalism in soteriological terms. In other words, most legalists will usually try and say legalism has to do with adding some type of works to your salvation. This is a common tactic employed by legalists to try and suggest they are not legalists.

Another ploy by legalists is to suggest it is better to land on the extreme right side of an issue than it is to land on the left side of an issue ... it is better to fault on the side of "higher" standards. The problem usually becomes, as it did in Jesus' day, the standard becomes the rule instead of the principle behind the standard.

I am not calling anyone a legalist here. I am just saying that legalists will not identify themselves as legalists.

Wow I used the word "legalist" a lot in the post. For a minute, I felt like I was at a disgruntled former IFBer meeting.

 

Thing is, we can only tell you what we know to be true based on our own experiences. But you won't take what we say as legitimate. At least it seems that way.

Im sorry if the term "higher standard" offends you, perhaps you prefer "stricter" versus "looser".

Either way, there are some that are in one category, and others that fall into the opposite category. We are all different mixes of all of them. Thats not legalism.

And while lots of legalists wouldn't admit to it, I know lots of liberals that won't admit to being liberal, either.

Like you, Im not calling anyone here a liberal either, but what difference does it make?

The term legalist is applied to almost anyone who has "stricter" standards than the person talking. The term liberal is applied to almost anyone who falls to the left of the person talking.

Same thing. Its too subjective of a term to accurately describe most people.

If I wanted to get real picky I could claim you are a legalist because you don't like the term "higher" when referring to standards.

 

My point is that is unfair to label a large group based on experience with a few.

I am supported by about 30 churches. All are independent, fundamental Baptists. Maybe one or two fit in the small box that AAG has painted for fundamentalist. The vast majority are loving, non-judgemental, compassionate people who are more concerned with souls than standards. They realise that in heart is more important than outward conformity.

I realise that this statement will be viewed as self-denial of reality by those who have a prejudicial view of fundamentalists, but that is fine. I know the reality of what I have seen over the last 30 years.

 

I contend it is very difficult to enter into this discussion with either side appearing "harsh" toward the other. That is part of the dance. I take no offence to things that are directed at me that could be considered harsh ... terms such as seeker-sensitive, shallow, liberal, compromiser, etc. All of these accusations could be considered harsh, but I recognize that is a natural part of the discussion. I don't care if someone thinks those things about me.

I have been called all of the above on one hand and a "legalist" on the other. That's part of the game. And that's why we must be able to argue position or belief, which has been my challenge from early on.

I hope none of us are above criticism or challenge.

I was being sarcastic...and actually the judgment comment was not as much for you as for the shock value of those who might be reading and think I am less "spiritual" because I use the word crap...and I am a pastor and father of 3 on top of that! Oh crap ... I better start putting the ** in between the c & p ... that way people will only think the word when they see it ... oh wait, I read silently anyway so whether all four letters are there or not, the same purpose is accomplished...the word is thought.

EXTREME SARCASM alert!!!

 

AAG,

You used the word challenge. I don't see challenging in this thread, I see attacking. The entire tone of this thread changed when you came in on page 2.

Here's how you started.

Right off the bat, you start off derogatorily with "fundies". You continue with this shot.

Tyrannical, legalistic Pharisaism. If that isn't an incendiary, attacking phrase, I don't know what is.

You continue with a dose of condescension to add to your derogatory use of "fundies".

Here's a condescending shot against bapmom.

How you can think that isn't inflammatory is beyond my comprehension.

This next one looks like a passive-aggressive attack.

Then, when challenged on it, you say:

Right. If you didn't mean it in a negative manner, why not make it clear from the beginning? Unless you have no self-awareness at all, you should know exactly how that comment would be taken. I think you wanted to sneak in that nasty comment and then claim that it's just another example of the "fundies" being defensive.

bapmom asked a perfectly reasonable question,

I haven't seen your answer to that one yet.


C4K wrote:

And you replied with:

You're the one painting "fundies" as tyrannical, legalistic Pharisees.


You wrote:

Especially when you seem to be intentionally going for abrasive.


You wrote:

I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not feeling the love. No bitterness? Nonsense. Here's an example of bitterness.

I'm not defending said youth pastor, but there's more than just a little bit of bitterness here. Your comments about girls snow skiing in culottes smacks of bitterness too. (btw, I'm not defending that either. I choose not to call it stupid.)

AAG wrote:

I don't believe this statement at all. You lumped bapmom's church in with all that is bad about HAC without knowing anything about her church. I think you brought your bitterness in about the "fundies" and have gone out of your way to tar all "fundies" with the same brush.


Gold Dragon wrote:

I couldn't agree more, but the cause of changing what Fundamentalism means surely isn't helped by bitter Christians coming out swinging against the "tyrannical, legalistic" "fundies".

I'm not about to deny that Fundamentalism has had many problems in the past. There have been, and continue to be, some real issues that affect the cause of Christ. However, I'm also not going to sit here and take it while you paint us all as "tyrannical, legalistic Pharisees", all the while implying that you're so far above us now that you have had a "good dose of grace".

It's one thing to challenge Fundamentalists and it's another thing to attack Fundamentalists.

 

I could have written these same words. Remember how I entered this discussion? Talking about my experience in fundy circles. But you suggested those experiences could be reinterpreted and perhaps the problem was with me and not the hierarchy.

I'm not offended in any way. As I said before, it is part of the discussion. The problem is that many fundamentalists think "higher" means "more right."

Actually most theological "liberals" admit they are just that. But then again what many fundies call "liberalism" has nothing to do with what liberalism actually is.

I have been called a legalist many times.

 

If you are referring to the BB, the answer is yes. And actually I have not spelled out my position on issues that would cause such reaction.

If like our Lord I could read the thoughts of others, then maybe we would know what labels some would pin on the type of person I described above.

Upon that we can agree.


Question for you: do you think your attitude and spirit is typical among most fundamentalists? I am not looking for "I would hope so". I am looking for your honest opinion on whether you believe most fundamentalists have a combative spirit toward those who hold different views on matters of preference and even principle.

 

I cannot answer for all or even most, but in my circles of fundamentalism the answer is yes, my attitude would be typical. I cannot speak with authority because I have been gone from the US for almost 11 years. Speaking of which, it is past my bedtime in this part of the world .

 

Id have to say yes, C4ks attitude, one which I share for the most part, is typical of my circles as well.
As to being combative towards those who hold different views? Most of the people in my circles don't really think about that alot. They are too busy doing what they believe God wants them to do.
I know one man who'd act combative about it when talking to you or me, but if confronted with the actual person living in a different manner than he does, he's be very kind and gracious.
Then I know one other man, not in my church, who'd actually probably be combative, although my knowledge of his personal life is very limited and Id have to say that my impression of him is only based on how Ive heard him talk to other preachers.

 

I do not mean the term "fundies" in a derogatory manner. You can choose whether to believe that or not, but I am not sure what it implies that would be considered derogatory. Why is "fundies" a derogatory term? It is common in this sort of dialogue to use terms like "mod" for moderate ... "con" for conservative ... "fundy" for fundamentalist ... "libs" for liberals ... etc.

With that in mind, how is my opening statement abrasive? Do you disagree that most fundamentalists are known more for what they are against than what they are for?

"Tyrannical, legalistic Pharisaism" was a term used in the context of my own experience. I stand by it.

Again I will ask ... are you suggesting there is not an attitude of "tyrannical, legalistic Pharisaism" among certain circles of fundamentalism?

Actually at this point in the conversation, I had no idea her church had staff from HAC.

Another question for you: would you consider the HAC, Longview, Baptist Contender crowd a good representation of fundamentalism or an extreme group?

Perhaps this is a bit overboard on my part. I can tend to employ sarcasm. I am not saying I do not believe it. I am simply saying I could have chosen to leave this comment aside.

When I see a website that emphasizes KJVO, 57k+ baptisms in 10 yrs, 16k baptisms in that same time, that runs 3-400, has a bus ministry, has HAC graduates on staff, has a Christian school reserved for the church kids, what am I supposed to think? What do you think?

A tree is known ...

By the way, I don't care this church believes or embraces this mentality. I am just saying most churches can be identified by their beliefs.

If you were to check out our website, you would assume we are seeker-sensitive, use very contemporary music, are not KJVO, etc. To think otherwise would be foolish (based on the content of our site).

I have repeated on more than one occasion ... fundamentalists, legalists, liberals, seeker-sensitives, purpose-drivens, there is no reason to be ashamed of these positions. Just recognize who you are and stand by your beliefs. If you selected other portions of my posts, you would see where I said this more than once.

I actually didn't see this question, but will be happy to answer it. By the way, does she get the same critique for using the phrase "Fundies". Or maybe it's okay if you capitalize it.

Question: Again, if you are going to use HAC as your example of Fundies who have gone bad, how come my church which is supposedly full of them is NOT like the church you described?

Answer: I do not know the intimate details of how your church functions. I can only go on the content of what I see, and what I see indicates that certain elements of your church are the same characteristics that tend to define fundamentalist churches in certain circles.

I would also say again: few, if any, legalists will claim to be legalists. Of course bp will say these things do not characterize her church. I would have said the same thing in the churches I was in during those days.

Actually you took this part of our discussion a little out of context, but that's okay b/c your point here is moot. As pointed out before, the "tyrannical, legalistic Pharisees" comment was made in reference to my personal experience.

Again a moot point ... you cannot judge my motives.

Another motives judgment so pointless.

And I will not even address the hypocritical nature of sarcasm being used to show someone else is not "feeling the love". Again I recognize supposed abrasiveness can be a part of the discussion, so I don't care if you use it to attack my use of it. The argument self destructs.

Wow ... three times in a row you judged my motives. No bitterness. Callousness? Perhaps. Bitterness? Nope. He actually had a great influence in my life at one time. I am thankful for the good and ignore the bad.

Still waiting for this to be shown. If anything, I have said repeatedly I know there are some good fundies out there.

Since your premise if flawed (e.g., that I am bitter and swinging against tyrannical, legalistic fundies), then the rest of the statement crumbles.

Actually I am not the one with the "higher" standards.


This is fun.

 

"When I see a website that emphasizes KJVO, 57k+ baptisms in 10 yrs, 16k baptisms in that same time, that runs 3-400, has a bus ministry, has HAC graduates on staff, has a Christian school reserved for the church kids, what am I supposed to think? What do you think?"


I don't know why you think most of this is negative.

I can understand a disagreement on KJVonly....ok.

I can understand a concern about whether or not we are overly concerned about numbers, all I can tell ya is that it isn't the main focus in my circles....which includes more than just my local church.

Otherwise, I don't see anything negative here.

I only interject again because I think it will enlighten me as to more of your point of view.

 

bp & C4K,

Since you answered yes to my previous question, I am assuming your church would have no problem hiring as a staff member the type of person I described earlier:

"NLT carrying, tattoo-sporting, U2 listening, alcohol drinking, blue jean - shirt tail out, earring wearing, facial haired Gen X, seeker-sensitive conversationalist who sits on a stool when we talk and use movie clips and videos to illustrate biblical truth?"

If they did have a problem with hiring such a person, why would they?

 

Where did I say it was negative???

I simply said it defines what type of church you are...just as our site marks what type of church we are.

 

Now come on, not fair to expand your original question in the midst of the discussion! lol

I can tell ya we wouldn't hire him as a staff member, but that doesn't mean he'd be treated harshly, either. And frankly, our reasons for not hiring him would mainly be NLT carrying, U2 listening, and alcohol drinkin'.

 

Where did I say it was negative???

I simply said it defines what type of church you are...just as our site marks what type of church we are. </font>[/QUOTE]but AAG, you've said that it identifies my church with the elements that you don't like.....the points that you say characterize so much of fundamentalism. If you didn't say that explicitly, than it was certainly the impression I got.

 

Here is the 2nd step to this question ... would you hesitate to say a person like I describe here could be "right with God"?

If he could be right with God, why would you hesitate to hire him?

 

I am simply saying your church bears the marks of a certain type of fundamentalist church...and that type of church is open to be challenged on certain beliefs and practices. My church bears the marks of a certain type of church and that church is open to be challenged on certain beliefs and practices.

The areas I would challenge your type of church are on matters of legalism. I am sure the areas you would challenge my church are on matters related to a "lack of standards".

 

perhaps, but I still do not see how you can get "legalism" by what you saw?

We have only church member's kids in our school because our philosophy of a Christian school is that it is a ministry of AND TO our own church. We have no quarrel with any other church that has a different philosophy towards its own Christian school. Most of the church-schools we play against in our sports program have a more open enrollment.

and why would having a bus ministry mean a church is more legalistic at all? Bus kids are really hard to deal with usually, at least ours are. They certainly don't have the same standards we do, but we just want them to be able to hear the gospel just like those who drive in to church can hear it.

Ive already dealt with the HAC issue, as each person ought to be judged individually, and you can't assume an attitude just based on the man's college. Also, two of our staff men went to secular college, didn't go to Bible college at all. So how is this legalism?

Again, Im not defending my specific church anymore so much as just trying to figure out what you would really think of as legalism.

ps. Im pretty sure those numbers demonstrate the last 30 years, not the last 10.

 

Here is the 2nd step to this question ... would you hesitate to say a person like I describe here could be "right with God"?

If he could be right with God, why would you hesitate to hire him? </font>[/QUOTE]Im sure he could be right with God where he is....that doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement...as there is for all of us.

But those are not the only criterion for hiring church staff. First of all, he obviously would not share our philosophy of separation from the world. U2 is not "easy listening", it is hard rock.....and Id really actually wonder if a Christian could listen to them long and STAY right with God for any length of time. Music matters hugely in one's attitude towards life.
Drinking alcohol is not something we'd agree with, and while he most certainly would not be kicked out of our church, we also would not put him on staff and offer him up as an example of how a separated Christian ought to live his life.

Being on staff and being a member of the church are two very different things. He would be treated just as kindly as anyone else would be.

Let me add, not everyone in our churches is at the point of being on our staffs. Staff members are needfully held to a somewhat more strict standard when we think of hiring them, as they are an example and a leader.