Church Standards?

[Sapper Woody]

I am starting this thread, as I do not want hijack Evans OP.



In some churches, you would be ousted for allowing your wife to wear pants -even outside the church grounds.
Some would say that you do compromise by maintain your lower standards.

So my question is - are you being honest to your church by not consistently holding to their higher standards.

I didn't see this until just now, so my apologies for the delay in answering.

No, I am not being dishonest, especially since I do not hide the fact that I believe what I believe. I have discussed it with assistant pastors and they know my stance, and they know that I comply with their stricter standard when necessary.

In fact, when I taught in the Bible college, I did not let my wife wear pants when students were around my house. We understand that those in authority (as I was when I taught) needed to have a unified front.

I taught music theory 1 and 2. When asked a straight question about my personal music standards by students in class, I answered that my personal standards were lower than the college's, but I deferred to the college standards while teaching. I was honest with them.

Now, I am not disagreeing that some churches would oust you for not holding to their standard at all times. But those churches generally are so legalistic I would not fit in there anyway.

Also, my usage of the word compromise has been somewhat ambiguous. In this case, I don't mean to compromise a standard by lowering it. A more accurate word would be defer.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

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

Then you have never encountered real Fundamentalism. May I suggest you research the FBFI, and/or the GARBC?

 

[blessedwife318]

Then you have never encountered real Fundamentalism. May I suggest you research the FBFI, and/or the GARBC?

What does GARBC stand for. I Know what FBFI is but not GARBC.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[TCassidy]

General Association of Regular Baptist Churches.

 

[blessedwife318]

General Association of Regular Baptist Churches.

Thanks.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Oy vey iz mir. If Westboro is your benchmark for Fundamentalism, you need to get your glass prescription updated. Because all the Fundamental Baptists I know of consider that bunch a crowd of outlyers. And WBC considers us a bunch of heretics.

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

 

[JamesL]

Oy vey iz mir. If Westboro is your benchmark for Fundamentalism, you need to get your glass prescription updated. Because all the Fundamental Baptists I know of consider that bunch a crowd of outlyers. And WBC considers us a bunch of heretics.

Only difference I've ever seen is that Westboro is just a little more vocal about it. They're less than an hour from me, ya know.

 

[JamesL]

...Because all the Fundamental Baptists I know of consider that bunch.....

Did you forget the "ist" on the end of Fundamental? Or is there not an "ist" ??

Because, as I have noted at least three times, if those you're talking about don't call themselves Fundamental-IST then we're not talking about the same people.

And that's Fundamental-IST with a Capital "F"

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Didn't forget any "ist". I fellowship with the Fundamental Baptist Fellowship International aka the FBFI. Though we do use a capitol "F" in speaking of the movement.

Did you forget the "ist" on the end of Fundamental? Or is there not an "ist" ??

Because, as I have noted at least three times, if those you're talking about don't call themselves Fundamental-IST then we're not talking about the same people.

And that's Fundamental-IST with a Capital "F"

 

[StefanM]

Oy vey iz mir. If Westboro is your benchmark for Fundamentalism, you need to get your glass prescription updated. Because all the Fundamental Baptists I know of consider that bunch a crowd of outlyers. And WBC considers us a bunch of heretics.

As a Southern Baptist who has "no dog in the fight," I agree with you completely.

Westboro "Baptist Church" (it's neither really Baptist or a church, IMO) is in an entirely different category. I prefer to call myself evangelical, and I wouldn't join a very large selection of IFB churches because of contradicting beliefs.

But even I must defend my brothers and sisters in the vast majority of Fundamental/Fundamentalist Baptist churches. I might strongly disagree on several issues, but they are earnestly seeking to follow God.

Based on their actions, although some Christians could possibly be in the church but deceived, Westboro itself is an instrument of evil.

 

[HankD]

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.

IMO Both upper and lower case Fundamentalism should refer to the fundamentals of the faith.

Apply "wacky, legalistic, fringe fanatic" appropriately wherever needed.

HankD

 

[JamesL]

IMO Both upper and lower case Fundamentalism should refer to the fundamentals of the faith.

Apply "wacky, legalistic, fringe fanatic" appropriately wherever needed.

HankD

You're right that they should. However, it's simply not the case.

But it's been noted by more than a few that those churches who use a Capital F are legalistic and teach preference as commandments of God. Maybe they didn't word it thar way, but it is the case.

Every single "F" church I've encountered has a works-oriented faux righteousness that revolves almost exclusively around outward appearances.

And that's not just in Baptist circles

 

[JamesL]

In some churches, you would be ousted for allowing your wife to wear pants -even outside the church grounds.
Some would say that you do compromise by maintain your lower standards.

So my question is - are you being honest to your church by not consistently holding to their higher standards.

you have the standards backward.

Scripture says nothing about pants. To institute a standard and try to mandate it would relegate these people as weaker brethren. Therefore, the pants standard would be the lower standard of legalism, contrasted against the higher standard of liberty

 

[Sapper Woody]

you have the standards backward.

Scripture says nothing about pants. To institute a standard and try to mandate it would relegate these people as weaker brethren. Therefore, the pants standard would be the lower standard of legalism, contrasted against the higher standard of liberty

In this discussion, "higher and lower" are synonymous with "stricter and looser". When one says "higher standard" they do not mean the most biblical. They mean the one that is most restrictive.

Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk

 

[Salty]

you have the standards backward.

Scripture says nothing about pants. To institute a standard and try to mandate it would relegate these people as weaker brethren. Therefore, the pants standard would be the lower standard of legalism, contrasted against the higher standard of liberty

I agree Scripture does not address pants on women - though many Fundys do address Deut 22:5.
And the discussion is not just about pants, but any issue that some put up so high - dancing, movies (even G-rated), Attending at least 10 church meetings per week, Pastor will be informed if you do not tithe at a minim, requiring weekly visitation reports.......

 

[TCassidy]

But it's been noted by more than a few that those churches who use a Capital F are legalistic and teach preference as commandments of God.

No, we don't.

Maybe they didn't word it thar way, but it is the case.

No, it isn't.

Every single "F" church I've encountered has a works-oriented faux righteousness that revolves almost exclusively around outward appearances.

Maybe you should get out more. Try some of the churches affiliated with the groups I mentioned in my other post.

Your error is that your sampling is way to small. You find a very few churches that self identify as Fundamentalist that are radical and you assume all churches that self identify as Fundamentalist are radical.

That is as bad as the radicals saying that all churches that self identify as Evangelical are liberal, Neo-evangelical, and compromise the word of God.

Same problem.

 

[Smyth]

I agree Scripture does not address pants on women - though many Fundys do address Deut 22:5.
And the discussion is not just about pants, but any issue that some put up so high - dancing, movies (even G-rated), Attending at least 10 church meetings per week, Pastor will be informed if you do not tithe at a minim, requiring weekly visitation reports.......

There are other verses that could apply to women wearing pants, such as 1 Corinthians 6:9, "effeminate" men "shall not inherit the kingdom of God" (applied to masculine women). Anyway, no follower of Christ disputes the inappropriateness of cross-dressing. The only issue is whether or not women wearing pants constitutes cross-dressing.

The answer is: Strictly speaking, women can wear pants without cross-dressing. Pants are now standard women's clothing that can be part of feminine attire. The longer answer is: Pants become women's wear through ungodly efforts by cultural engineers to destroy the distinctions between men and women. And, pants don't make a feminine statement the way skirts do. Therefor, while it is acceptable for women two wear pants, it is better for a woman to to wear skirts, especially for more formal occasions (including church).

Put on high? There are a lot of movies Christians shouldn't see. And, most movies we say are okay to see we shouldn't because they teach unchristianity. Imagine a movie abusing the n-word, no one would tolerate it. But nearly every PG13 and R movie abuses Jesus name, and not only do we say nothing, we give our money to those abusers, while going to the movie absorbing its hostility to Christ.

 

[JamesL]

If a man starts trying to prostitute himself to men in your church, during the service, would you demonstrate hypocrisy and a weak spirit by objecting, or would you approve of his actions?

Do they give whizzo buttons to people who ask [snipped] questions? If so, there might be a box full of whizzo buttons with your name on it

 

[HankD]

You're right that they should. However, it's simply not the case.

But it's been noted by more than a few that those churches who use a Capital F are legalistic and teach preference as commandments of God. Maybe they didn't word it thar way, but it is the case.

Every single "F" church I've encountered has a works-oriented faux righteousness that revolves almost exclusively around outward appearances.

And that's not just in Baptist circles

I call the rules - invisible commandments written on the walls of the church (we have no such in the local church I attend).

HankD

 

[OnlyaSinner]

Did you forget the "ist" on the end of Fundamental? Or is there not an "ist" ??

Because, as I have noted at least three times, if those you're talking about don't call themselves Fundamental-IST then we're not talking about the same people.

And that's Fundamental-IST with a Capital "F"

What's in a name? The only difference I see between "ist" and "no ist" is that one is a noun and the other an adjective.

And standards are subjective and often cultural (though some transcend culture.) An old comment says, 'Anyone stricter than me is a legalist; anyone less strict is a liberal." IMO, clothing choices made with a "Look at me!" intent by regular attendees are inappropriate at worship services, and the same goes for visitors who have asked or been invited to present their ministry at the front platform. Other visitors, it's much different. Almost anything that passes (secular) legal muster is okay. Expecting unbelievers to act like Christians is hopelessly wrong.