Featured Church Standards?

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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


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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

That's your choice!

 

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

Lower case fundamentalism relates to the fundamentals of the faith

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