-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Attitutudinal Issues
- Thread starter Rhetorician
- Start date
I did, and its scary.
I understand where you are coming from Gershom
Many IFB folks put the cart before the animal, and some don't even bother to bring the animal.
We need to embrace our own sanctification for sure, I don't need to party with my co-workers or go out drinking or smoking pot with them to help them listen to me. But I don't attack them for their unchristian behavior for the most part, they are acting in a way that is consistent with their nature. My goal is not to get them to stop drinking or partying, but to get them to understand their need for Christ, the two things are not the same, something that is not always understood in IFB circles.
Superdave I think you mis-understand the direction of the IFB circles emphasis on holiness. I cannot think of a single IFB pastor who tries to get people to stop drinking or partying before they are saved. In fact many IFB pastors believe that you simply cannot live a holy, separated life until after you are saved. Thus they are not putting the cart before the horse as you say. They are simply putting more emphasis on the cart than you would care for them to.
Now if you want to criticize some in the circle for pushing too hard too soon... you might have a point. I know of many situations personally where a pastor pushed new converts so hard to give up their "obvious" sins that they drove them out of the church before they could mature as Christians. Many IFB's need to understand that holiness is an end, not a means to an end. In that respect perhaps we (I am an IFB) do put the cart before the horse because we push people to clear themselves of overt sins before they fully develop their relationships with God.
My personal belief is that if a person develops the proper relationship with God, the outer (and incidentally inner) issues will go away, but ONLY if the individual is made aware of what God considers Holy. Thus it is perfectly appropriate for a pastor to preach against sin...and preach hard against sin. To do otherwise would be to abdicate his responsibility in the pulpit. Through a combination of relationship building and preaching against sin, a pastor can bring his people to a place where they fully embrace God's Holiness because they are living in God's Love.
Now if you want to criticize some in the circle for pushing too hard too soon... you might have a point. I know of many situations personally where a pastor pushed new converts so hard to give up their "obvious" sins that they drove them out of the church before they could mature as Christians. Many IFB's need to understand that holiness is an end, not a means to an end. In that respect perhaps we (I am an IFB) do put the cart before the horse because we push people to clear themselves of overt sins before they fully develop their relationships with God.
My personal belief is that if a person develops the proper relationship with God, the outer (and incidentally inner) issues will go away, but ONLY if the individual is made aware of what God considers Holy. Thus it is perfectly appropriate for a pastor to preach against sin...and preach hard against sin. To do otherwise would be to abdicate his responsibility in the pulpit. Through a combination of relationship building and preaching against sin, a pastor can bring his people to a place where they fully embrace God's Holiness because they are living in God's Love.
All about Grace
New Member
What you don't find in the Bible is KJVOism, standards of dress like we discussed earlier, and other standards that have been elevated to "necessary to be right with God" status among many fundies.
And by the way preaching one's personal standards of conduct and dress does not equal preaching against sin.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Here we go again, making that characteristics of a few out to be tyical of the whole. I agree that a person does not have the use the KJV or dress a cedrtain way to be right with God. Most fundamentalists that I have been in contact with the for the last 30 years would agree with me.
Fundamentalism has had its growth pains, no one can deny that. A true Fundamentalist is bound by the word of God, and the word of God alone. They are groups who call themselves fundamentalist who are hung up on versions and standards, just as there are evangelicals who are hung up on judging fundamentalists. Neither are right. In the same regard, I neither are typical of their movements as a whole.
I have no problem calling myself a fundamentalist or an evangelical, both are apt descriptions.
Fundamentalism has had its growth pains, no one can deny that. A true Fundamentalist is bound by the word of God, and the word of God alone. They are groups who call themselves fundamentalist who are hung up on versions and standards, just as there are evangelicals who are hung up on judging fundamentalists. Neither are right. In the same regard, I neither are typical of their movements as a whole.
I have no problem calling myself a fundamentalist or an evangelical, both are apt descriptions.
Amen, C4K.
About dress standards in the Bible, of course there are! If you think about it, absolutely every Christian will agree that there are dress standards in the Bible.
The Bible teaches over and over that nakedness is a shame, doesn't it? So there is a minimum dress standard. Would any pastor you know put up with a person coming to church naked? Absolutely not. That is a dress standard.
The difference is only in where you draw the line. I happen to believe that the Bible teaches not just to have clothes on (the "nakedness is a shame" standard that all Christians have), but modesty. Therefore, if a man or woman (either one) comes to church showing more skin than is appropriate, as a loving pastor I would take the person aside and gentle teach them our church's standards. Our sister church accross town did that recently, and the person was not offended, but happy to comply.
How could that possibly be wrong? Any Christian who criticizes someone else's modesty standard while keeping a less strict standard is not being fair. We each have liberty in the Lord to determine our own Biblical standards. As soon as a Fundamentalist does so, though, he is accused of legalism.
About dress standards in the Bible, of course there are! If you think about it, absolutely every Christian will agree that there are dress standards in the Bible.
The Bible teaches over and over that nakedness is a shame, doesn't it? So there is a minimum dress standard. Would any pastor you know put up with a person coming to church naked? Absolutely not. That is a dress standard.
The difference is only in where you draw the line. I happen to believe that the Bible teaches not just to have clothes on (the "nakedness is a shame" standard that all Christians have), but modesty. Therefore, if a man or woman (either one) comes to church showing more skin than is appropriate, as a loving pastor I would take the person aside and gentle teach them our church's standards. Our sister church accross town did that recently, and the person was not offended, but happy to comply.
How could that possibly be wrong? Any Christian who criticizes someone else's modesty standard while keeping a less strict standard is not being fair. We each have liberty in the Lord to determine our own Biblical standards. As soon as a Fundamentalist does so, though, he is accused of legalism.
Hey all,
I just gotta chime in here.
From my limited circle of contact with the Fundamentalists (and in some regards in is probably larger than some and smaller than others), this present discussion goes to the heart of the attitudianl matter that prompted me to open the topic.
Many, not all and in many different camps of Fundamentalists, see no difference b/t internal holiness and external holiness. Jesus seems to have had his most heated discussions with the religious leaders of his day over this internal vs. external dynamic.
Fundamentalism, in some form, tint, or hue, seems to put the emphasis on the EXTERNALS of a holy life. These externals take on the form of: bobbed hair (John R. Rice's 40s something book), wearing cullottes, with whom I associate or sit on some platform ministerially, long-haired men, reading in a broader context, witnessing methods, or "you fill in the blank" separation. At the same time it seems to possess attitudes like; if you do not do the externals of "holiness" like me, Dr. Hyles, Dr. Falwell, Dr. Rice, "The Sword of the Lord," or whatever the external standard may be; then you are not holy (as me or like me).
My major point seems to have been missed. We have beaten the bush all about it but have not come to the main point.
We (the Fundamentalists, and I still have those proclivities), hold to "the externals of religion" while holding to nasty inward attitudes of religious pride. We define holiness with all of the "separation issues" that are only external and NEVER EVER deal with those attitudes of the heart. b/c, we feel that we have a "lock on the truth" whatever that truth may look like to us personally. This truth may be KJOism, "secondary separation," your women don't wear coulottes and ours do, etc., et al, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
It seems to me that we have focused on the externals like the Pharisees and not the internals for which Jesus preached and argued?
It also seems to me that we have created a whole new set of external standards "of separation" or "holiness" by which we have (do) measure everyone both inside and outside the Fundamentalist's circle or involvement.
I would argue that the overt and covert attitudinal problems are just sheer religious pride. The ones with those problems really believe that their brand of Christianity and they personally are "better" or "more holy" than anyone outside of their camp or following who does not do it like they do it.
And before I start getting "those cards and letters," I know that each and every group (and person) can be guilty of religious pride. It is one of the most dangerous and insepid forms of sin. Religious pride can even come from which college or seminary someone did or did not attend. If you don't think that is possible, go to the Seminary/College pages and read for a while.
God save us from judging anyone by the externals of religion that I (we) have set up!!!! and then calling it holiness.
sdg!
rd
I just gotta chime in here.
From my limited circle of contact with the Fundamentalists (and in some regards in is probably larger than some and smaller than others), this present discussion goes to the heart of the attitudianl matter that prompted me to open the topic.
Many, not all and in many different camps of Fundamentalists, see no difference b/t internal holiness and external holiness. Jesus seems to have had his most heated discussions with the religious leaders of his day over this internal vs. external dynamic.
Fundamentalism, in some form, tint, or hue, seems to put the emphasis on the EXTERNALS of a holy life. These externals take on the form of: bobbed hair (John R. Rice's 40s something book), wearing cullottes, with whom I associate or sit on some platform ministerially, long-haired men, reading in a broader context, witnessing methods, or "you fill in the blank" separation. At the same time it seems to possess attitudes like; if you do not do the externals of "holiness" like me, Dr. Hyles, Dr. Falwell, Dr. Rice, "The Sword of the Lord," or whatever the external standard may be; then you are not holy (as me or like me).
My major point seems to have been missed. We have beaten the bush all about it but have not come to the main point.
We (the Fundamentalists, and I still have those proclivities), hold to "the externals of religion" while holding to nasty inward attitudes of religious pride. We define holiness with all of the "separation issues" that are only external and NEVER EVER deal with those attitudes of the heart. b/c, we feel that we have a "lock on the truth" whatever that truth may look like to us personally. This truth may be KJOism, "secondary separation," your women don't wear coulottes and ours do, etc., et al, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
It seems to me that we have focused on the externals like the Pharisees and not the internals for which Jesus preached and argued?
It also seems to me that we have created a whole new set of external standards "of separation" or "holiness" by which we have (do) measure everyone both inside and outside the Fundamentalist's circle or involvement.
I would argue that the overt and covert attitudinal problems are just sheer religious pride. The ones with those problems really believe that their brand of Christianity and they personally are "better" or "more holy" than anyone outside of their camp or following who does not do it like they do it.
And before I start getting "those cards and letters," I know that each and every group (and person) can be guilty of religious pride. It is one of the most dangerous and insepid forms of sin. Religious pride can even come from which college or seminary someone did or did not attend. If you don't think that is possible, go to the Seminary/College pages and read for a while.
God save us from judging anyone by the externals of religion that I (we) have set up!!!! and then calling it holiness.
sdg!
rd
4His_glory
New Member
Amen Amen! I often use both terms to refer to myself and other interchangibly. I guess I consider my self an Evangelical Fundamentalist Baptist, but those terms can be considered redundant as well.
Rhetorician said:
"I would argue that the overt and covert attitudinal problems are just sheer religious pride. The ones with those problems really believe that their brand of Christianity and they personally are "better" or "more holy" than anyone outside of their camp or following who does not do it like they do it."
I agreed with your whole post
But I picked a paragraph that I think holds a key. "the ones with those problems" hits it right on the head. Like you said, there'll be problems like this with any group.
One thing my husband has long worked against, is the attitude that we can sometimes get because we strive to have Biblical doctrines. When we can say, with all honesty, that we line up with the Bible (in beliefs, not perfect in practice), then we can also get the attitude that we are not able to be WRONG. We've seen it happen to really good people.
I guess my issue has been that so many have a preconceived notion or bias about us that they are unwilling to give up. We've been responded to on here as if we are saying far more than our words are actually portraying....and its because some people have this idea that anyone calling themselves Independent and Fundamental must of necessity fit into this "pigeon hole" that they have defined in their head.
So even when present with evidence on an individual basis they are unwilling to change their own perception. This makes me really wonder if they didn't do the same thing when listening to IFB preachers. They project their own "notions" of what the man must REALLY be saying, and so then they get offended when the preacher's intent was nothing like what they are thinking.
I think this happens alot. Ive SEEN it happen alot.
By saying this Im not implying that I disagree with Rhetorician. I know theres problems. But I think some of the reason for the reputation is other people projecting and reading between the lines of what they hear.
"I would argue that the overt and covert attitudinal problems are just sheer religious pride. The ones with those problems really believe that their brand of Christianity and they personally are "better" or "more holy" than anyone outside of their camp or following who does not do it like they do it."
I agreed with your whole post
One thing my husband has long worked against, is the attitude that we can sometimes get because we strive to have Biblical doctrines. When we can say, with all honesty, that we line up with the Bible (in beliefs, not perfect in practice), then we can also get the attitude that we are not able to be WRONG. We've seen it happen to really good people.
I guess my issue has been that so many have a preconceived notion or bias about us that they are unwilling to give up. We've been responded to on here as if we are saying far more than our words are actually portraying....and its because some people have this idea that anyone calling themselves Independent and Fundamental must of necessity fit into this "pigeon hole" that they have defined in their head.
So even when present with evidence on an individual basis they are unwilling to change their own perception. This makes me really wonder if they didn't do the same thing when listening to IFB preachers. They project their own "notions" of what the man must REALLY be saying, and so then they get offended when the preacher's intent was nothing like what they are thinking.
I think this happens alot. Ive SEEN it happen alot.
By saying this Im not implying that I disagree with Rhetorician. I know theres problems. But I think some of the reason for the reputation is other people projecting and reading between the lines of what they hear.
Maverick
Member
We got the names Christian and Baptist from our enemies and Fighting may have come from there as well. Fundamentalism came about in the fight against modernism and we have been fighting apostasy and Liberalism ever since.
Yes, some are street fighters and tend to be a bit rude and crude. Others are more cultured using the Marquis of Queensberry rules, but are still fighting. Both modes work well in various situations and there are times when you need to use the nuclear option.
I pray that I will be a Independent Fightin' Fundamentalist till death or Rapture. Semper Ty, do or die!!!
Yes, some are street fighters and tend to be a bit rude and crude. Others are more cultured using the Marquis of Queensberry rules, but are still fighting. Both modes work well in various situations and there are times when you need to use the nuclear option.
I pray that I will be a Independent Fightin' Fundamentalist till death or Rapture. Semper Ty, do or die!!!
Maverick
Member
As to the externals,while it is true that you may have the externals correct but be a white washed tomb would it not also be true that if the internal parts are true and pure it would reflect on the outside?
I have a hard time believing that folks that look so much and act so much like the world tell me they are sold out to God.
We are where the world was 50 years ago and if the Lord tarries and it gets to where it is fine to be naked and have sex in the streets the Church of that day will most likely condemn the public sex but will condone public nakedness using the "logic" of today's "Christian" nudists.
If the inside is right the outside should line up with it. Note that you can't tell the tares from the wheat by their externals. Only God sees the heart, so as James says, show me don't tell me.
I have a hard time believing that folks that look so much and act so much like the world tell me they are sold out to God.
We are where the world was 50 years ago and if the Lord tarries and it gets to where it is fine to be naked and have sex in the streets the Church of that day will most likely condemn the public sex but will condone public nakedness using the "logic" of today's "Christian" nudists.
If the inside is right the outside should line up with it. Note that you can't tell the tares from the wheat by their externals. Only God sees the heart, so as James says, show me don't tell me.
All about Grace
New Member
John ~ you missed the whole point. It is not about modesty principles. It is about application of those principles being elevated to the status of the principle itself. Eg., modesty is the principle - coulottes is the solution (in certain fundy circles). Problem? Coulottes become the barometer for spiritual rightness. In other words, if you are wearing pants or shorts, you are not as "right with God" as I am b/c I wear coulottes. Herein lies the problem (as Rhetorician demonstrates above). You "you can't come to church naked" simply does not fly. That is not what we are talking about.
This is really not that difficult. Just answer a few simple questions and it will clarify what we are talking about:
- Do you believe a lady can wear shorts above her knees and maintain modesty?
- Do you believe a person who uses a KJVersion of the Bible is "more right" than a person who prefers the NIV?
- Do you believe music that is accompanied by drums is more "worldly" than piano music?
- Do you believe a guy who decides to get his ear pierced or get a tatoo is doing something "wrong"?
- Do you think a pastor who preaches in jeans and a t-shirt, sits on a stool, and implements movie clips into his sermon is "compromising" in some fashion?
Perhaps this is because you referred to the KJV as the superior translation and music that does not meet your standard as "worldly". It is a prime example of what I am talking about.
This is really not that difficult. Just answer a few simple questions and it will clarify what we are talking about:
- Do you believe a lady can wear shorts above her knees and maintain modesty?
- Do you believe a person who uses a KJVersion of the Bible is "more right" than a person who prefers the NIV?
- Do you believe music that is accompanied by drums is more "worldly" than piano music?
- Do you believe a guy who decides to get his ear pierced or get a tatoo is doing something "wrong"?
- Do you think a pastor who preaches in jeans and a t-shirt, sits on a stool, and implements movie clips into his sermon is "compromising" in some fashion?
Exactly what I am talking about.
All about Grace
New Member
I said "many" which does not mean "whole."
You have already admitted there is a large contingency in the IFB world that believes they are the majority and you are the minority. I happen to believe they are right (as demonstrated by the small list I put together earlier off the top of my head that would fall in the latter category).
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
AAG,
You are setting up a legalistic standard based on worldly issues to decide whether or not other are "legalistic."
You appear to be making yourself to human arbiter of what legalism is.
- Do you believe a lady can wear only skirts and dresses and have that as a standard for her life can do so without being a legalist?
- Do you believe a person who uses only the KJV to the exclusion of all others is less spiritual than one who uses many versions?
- Do you believe that a church can use only conservative hymns and music can be in God's will and reaching out to the world in the 21st century?
etc, etc.
These are unfair questions either way. No one here is capable of judging another's heart based on externals.
You have become judge and jury to decide if a person is a legalist ot not based on your own man made standards.
Methinks that standard setting applies on both sides of the aisle.
You are setting up a legalistic standard based on worldly issues to decide whether or not other are "legalistic."
You appear to be making yourself to human arbiter of what legalism is.
- Do you believe a lady can wear only skirts and dresses and have that as a standard for her life can do so without being a legalist?
- Do you believe a person who uses only the KJV to the exclusion of all others is less spiritual than one who uses many versions?
- Do you believe that a church can use only conservative hymns and music can be in God's will and reaching out to the world in the 21st century?
etc, etc.
These are unfair questions either way. No one here is capable of judging another's heart based on externals.
You have become judge and jury to decide if a person is a legalist ot not based on your own man made standards.
Methinks that standard setting applies on both sides of the aisle.
AAG,
so Im not allowed to have standards without you assuming that Im going around "enforcing" them on everyone else?
You do realize that our churches don't have "rules" for people, right? We have leadership standards, but those apply to a select few who are IN Leadership positions and believe those standards as well. If they don't wish to abide by them, they don't have to be leaders.....but they aren't kicked out of our church, either.
There are so many reasons for standards that you cannot just assume things about the person holding to them.
We dress nice for church out of respect for God. But that doesn't mean that a man HAS to wear a suit in order to not be compromising. You know, sometimes our preacher even takes his suit jacket off while preaching!
(see? sarcasm....) ANd watch out if he loosens his tie!
If he did sit on a stool, what would be the big deal?
There are eight people I believe canNOT be modest if wearing shorts OR a dress above their knee.....thats ME, MYSELF, and I....and my three girls and two boys. (I apply modesty standards to more than just females. God never makes a difference in gender when it comes to modesty.) Otherwise, I will teach those under my realm of teaching authority what the Bible says about modesty. They can then take it or leave it.
Besides that, I agree with what C4K wrote, too.
(Drums are a part of an orchestra, too. Love orchestra music!)
so Im not allowed to have standards without you assuming that Im going around "enforcing" them on everyone else?
You do realize that our churches don't have "rules" for people, right? We have leadership standards, but those apply to a select few who are IN Leadership positions and believe those standards as well. If they don't wish to abide by them, they don't have to be leaders.....but they aren't kicked out of our church, either.
There are so many reasons for standards that you cannot just assume things about the person holding to them.
We dress nice for church out of respect for God. But that doesn't mean that a man HAS to wear a suit in order to not be compromising. You know, sometimes our preacher even takes his suit jacket off while preaching!
(see? sarcasm....) ANd watch out if he loosens his tie! If he did sit on a stool, what would be the big deal?
There are eight people I believe canNOT be modest if wearing shorts OR a dress above their knee.....thats ME, MYSELF, and I....and my three girls and two boys. (I apply modesty standards to more than just females. God never makes a difference in gender when it comes to modesty.) Otherwise, I will teach those under my realm of teaching authority what the Bible says about modesty. They can then take it or leave it.
Besides that, I agree with what C4K wrote, too.
(Drums are a part of an orchestra, too. Love orchestra music!)
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
One more
- Do you believe that those who continue to call themselves fundamentalist understand the grace of God and liberty in Christ as well as those who have cast off and rejected the heinous title?
- Do you believe that those who continue to call themselves fundamentalist understand the grace of God and liberty in Christ as well as those who have cast off and rejected the heinous title?
All about Grace
New Member
Once again -- the point is missed (part of the frustration is dealing with fundies).
The point is not that my standards are the arbitrator. The point is the opposite. The standards that I set are not the determining factor -- that is the point!!! When I make my standards the determining factor, then I have crossed the line into legalism.
The point of the list was to bring out this reality. If I don't want my family to wear shorts or whatever, that is fine and not legalistic. However when I look at a family that is wearing shorts and discern from that outward appearance that the family is somehow less spiritual or less "right with God" then I have crossed the line.
By the way, I believe that attitude is innate within fundamentalism whether it is ever verbalized or not. There is an attitude of spiritual superiority among MANY fundamentalists that is based solely on outward appearance. Indeed you see that spirit displayed even in this discussion where some fundies have deliberately tried to steer away from that perception.
My wife, who was raised in fundy circles, recalls thinking her extended SBC family members were somehow less spiritual b/c the women wore pants, went to public school, listened to the radio, etc. Was that belief verbalized to her? Probably not, but the innate tendency of legalism within that circle of fundamentalism created it.
By the way I would have no problem answering "yes" to your questions, although I would question whether a church can connect to 21st century by limiting themselves to a certain era of history, but that is another discussion and has nothing to do with whether the church can be "right". It is a question of effectiveness.
The point is not that my standards are the arbitrator. The point is the opposite. The standards that I set are not the determining factor -- that is the point!!! When I make my standards the determining factor, then I have crossed the line into legalism.
The point of the list was to bring out this reality. If I don't want my family to wear shorts or whatever, that is fine and not legalistic. However when I look at a family that is wearing shorts and discern from that outward appearance that the family is somehow less spiritual or less "right with God" then I have crossed the line.
By the way, I believe that attitude is innate within fundamentalism whether it is ever verbalized or not. There is an attitude of spiritual superiority among MANY fundamentalists that is based solely on outward appearance. Indeed you see that spirit displayed even in this discussion where some fundies have deliberately tried to steer away from that perception.
My wife, who was raised in fundy circles, recalls thinking her extended SBC family members were somehow less spiritual b/c the women wore pants, went to public school, listened to the radio, etc. Was that belief verbalized to her? Probably not, but the innate tendency of legalism within that circle of fundamentalism created it.
By the way I would have no problem answering "yes" to your questions, although I would question whether a church can connect to 21st century by limiting themselves to a certain era of history, but that is another discussion and has nothing to do with whether the church can be "right". It is a question of effectiveness.
4His_glory
New Member
I fealt that way too growing up; that others who did not hold to my standards where less spiritual.
Thankfully I God has opened my eyes and I understand things better now. But again, your wifes experience and my experience are just a small part of a very broad picture. The "realm" of who is a fundamentalist is very broad, so to say that this is a prevailing attitude is not fair.
Thankfully I God has opened my eyes and I understand things better now. But again, your wifes experience and my experience are just a small part of a very broad picture. The "realm" of who is a fundamentalist is very broad, so to say that this is a prevailing attitude is not fair.