Fundamentalism, How to describe it

[John of Japan]

John, wasn't Billy James Hargis [also a Restorationist, in the Disciples of Christ tradition] considered a Fundamentalist? I believe the school you are at right now awarded him an honorary doctorate!

View attachment 11649

I remember the name, but don't know anything about him. You're probably right, but if so I'm surprised that he was given a doctorate.

 

[John of Japan]

I disagree that it is not legalism. But I do get that it is not legalism in the sence of earning salvation.

BUT if fundamentals believe the charge of "legalism" is being thurst upon them under the theological definition you provided then they do not understand what is being claimed.

The issue of legalism here is one among Christian denominations (particularly Baptist churches) so salvation so not the issue.

The definition used is the common definition : a strict, or excessive conformity to a religious moral code with a goal of refraining from sin rather than salvation.

Think of the laws the Pharisees made to make sure the Law was kept. It is this type of thing.


For example, men could be tempted to lust if a pretty woman is wearing a bikini to church. Therefore women must wear dresses. Rather than addressing the issue - lustful men and scantily clad women - the solution is to add rules in excess. If a man is tempted towards lust because a woman wears pants then the problem is the lustful man and not the woman wearing pants.

But I agree that much concerns culture when it comes to attire.

My view is churches become legalistic in a bad way when their "laws" not only exceed Scripture but also form a barrier to sharing the gosoel of Jesus Christ. This could be dress codes. This could be relying on antiquated translations. This could be adopting "sacred speech" (I have heard preachers deliver sermons and people praying in "King James" language (or try to anyway).

I believe that we should worship in spirit and truth, not be somebody other than ourselves. I also believe putting on airs can be an obstacle to our witness.

If you wear a suit, wear a suit. If jeans, wear jeans.

The only thing Scripture may prohibit is expensive clothes and jewelry, depending on how "literal" one takes the passage.

I don't have time to explain the whole story of where your definition came from, but I will just say:n
1. It's not a theological definition, but a popular one.
2. It is not accepted by fundamentalists, and we consider it to be pejorative. It is usually a way to insult fundamentalists, so I'm disappointed you are using it. You usually impress me with your posts.
3. It did not exist until the New Evangelicals started their movement in the 1940's and 1950's. Until then, everybody in evangelicalism believed in honoring God with their standards. Many were even against things we modern fundamentalists believe to be okay: the theater (for plays, not movies), etc.
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.

That's all I'll say. I'm away from home at the Bible Faculty Summit, or I could give plenty of evidence in the form of historical events, quotes, and the like.

You are obviously convinced of your position and willing to call me a legalist, so I'll bow out now.

 

[John of Japan]

It was Harold John Ockenga who invented the term "New Evangelicalism" in, I think, 1946. Graham became the face of the movement, and Carl F. H. Henry was the theologian, and the editor of Christianity Today, founded by Graham. Henry told one of my seminary prof friends that the movement had gone too far in leaving fundamentalism. Francis Schaeffer said something similar in his book, The Great Evangelical Disaster. So, a couple of years ago I read a movie review in Christianity Today in which the author described a movie with nudity, swearing, a love scene, etc., but then recommended the movie. Is that what you guys think is "freedom"?

 

[Dr. Bob]

I use the term ifbX - stealing the name of independent fundamental Baptists but then adding to it "x" - false doctrine (like KJVonly), false sanctification (like man-made standeeerds for one to be considered spiritual), false Gospel (replace truth with a simple "just belief" mantra)

I do not consider them to be historical fundamentalists, but modern charlatans who are stealing sheep.

 

[JonC]

I don't have time to explain the whole story of where your definition came from, but I will just say:n
1. It's not a theological definition, but a popular one.
2. It is not accepted by fundamentalists, and we consider it to be pejorative. It is usually a way to insult fundamentalists, so I'm disappointed you are using it. You usually impress me with your posts.
3. It did not exist until the New Evangelicals started their movement in the 1940's and 1950's. Until then, everybody in evangelicalism believed in honoring God with their standards. Many were even against things we modern fundamentalists believe to be okay: the theater (for plays, not movies), etc.
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.

That's all I'll say. I'm away from home at the Bible Faculty Summit, or I could give plenty of evidence in the form of historical events, quotes, and the like.

You are obviously convinced of your position and willing to call me a legalist, so I'll bow out now.

1. It came from the dictionary.
2. I am not calling you anything.
3. I am not denying your "theological definition".
4. I am saying that those who call FBC "legalistic" are using the "popular definition".

And I know that not all IFB churches are legalistic per the popular definition of the word.

I was relating my experiences explaining how I view "fundamentalism" as asked in the OP.
I even acknowledged that my view of IFB churches is based on limited experience and that I know it is not correct t towards the whole denomination.


I also know that decades ago evangelism meant wearing a suit to church. I grew up polishing my Sunday shoes on Saturday. I am not doubting the history.

And maybe not requiring men to wear a suit and tie to church is "an invention of New Evangelicals". If so, at least it is a more biblical view (a suit and tie, while once common dress when not working, is no longer modest dress).

Would I turn away a brother coming to worship God, or somebody seeking God, because they wear blue jeans and a t-shirt? No. I guess all I can say is I am glad to be a "New Evangelical". I have not worn a suit in years.

 

[John of Japan]

1. It came from the dictionary.
2. I am not calling you anything.
3. I am not denying your "theological definition".
4. I am saying that those who call FBC "legalistic" are using the "popular definition".

And I know that not all IFB churches are legalistic per the popular definition of the word.

I was relating my experiences explaining how I view "fundamentalism" as asked in the OP.
I even acknowledged that my view of IFB churches is based on limited experience and that I know it is not correct t towards the whole denomination.


I also know that decades ago evangelism meant wearing a suit to church. I grew up polishing my Sunday shoes on Saturday. I am not doubting the history.

And maybe not requiring men to wear a suit and tie to church is "an invention of New Evangelicals". If so, at least it is a more biblical view (a suit and tie, while once common dress when not working, is no longer modest dress).

Would I turn away a brother coming to worship God, or somebody seeking God, because they wear blue jeans and a t-shirt? No. I guess all I can say is I am glad to be a "New Evangelical". I have not worn a suit in years.

Thanks for the clarifications. Sigh. I have to return to the paper being presented on existential theology and worldview.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for the clarifications. Sigh. I have to return to the paper being presented on existential theology and worldview.

"Existential theology"....is that some sort of legalistic thing??

Just kidding...and poking....us Southern Baptists do that....its a gift.

 

[John of Japan]

"Existential theology"....is that some sort of legalistic thing??

Just kidding...and poking....us Southern Baptists do that....its a gift.

I Kant tell.

 

[JonC]

I Kant tell.

My kind of Hume-or.

(I can't do anything with Kierkegaard. My talent ends here.)

 

[John of Japan]

But isn't Paul appealing? And Peale appalling!

 

[John of Japan]

The paper I'm listening to being presented now makes the point that all of the early church fathers taught that women always should have a head covering, and not wearing a head covering was immodest. Guess Irenaeus, Tertullian, and all those guys were legalists, eh?

 

[JonC]

The paper I'm listening to being presented now makes the point that all of the early church fathers taught that women always should have a head covering, and not wearing a head covering was immodest. Guess Irenaeus, Tertullian, and all those guys were legalists, eh?

I don't know if they were legalists or not, but not for head coverings.

It was not legalism in Scripture because of the representation of head coverings (as Paul explained). It would not have been modest for a woman not to cover her head (it would be elevating oneself, like wearing expensive clothes or jewlery).

I do not believe it legalistic, for example, if you corrected a man for wearing an expensive suit, or a woman for fancy hairstyles, expensive jewlery, etc., because that is ignoring modesty.

My concern is more with people who would put on airs, dress in a way they would not otherwise dress, "dress to impress", etc. But mostly my concern with that is if it isolates people who do not have the means to meet a specific standard.

And it goes both ways. If somebody "dressed down" specifically for church (we should always be modest) that would be questionable.

 

[Zaatar71]

The charge of "legalism" against fundamentalism is old but usually false, made by those who do not understand the fundamentalist doctrine of personal separation. (I do not say it is never true.) Simply making a list of rules is not legalism, if that is what you are referring to. (A church constitution is a list of rules.) The correct definition of legalism is this by Baptist theologian Millard Erickson is: “Legalism is a slavish following of the law in the belief that one thereby earns merit; it also entails a refusal to go beyond the formal or literal requirements of the law” (Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (2013, p. 908). Very few fundamentalist churches would go along with that.

When New Evangelicalism separated from fundamentalism in 1957, one of the major reasons was the fundamentalist doctrine of personal separation. The New Evangelicals (led by Billy Graham) objected to any kind of standards of separation, and stood for cooperation with liberals, kicked off by the 1957 New York crusade of Graham.

How would you describe the doctrine of personal separation? Avoid the World system? Avoid sinful environments?

 

[OLD SARGE]

https://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF%20Books%20II/Torrey%20-%20The%20Fundamentals%201.pdf

 

[Ben1445]

I don't know if they were legalists or not, but not for head coverings.

It was not legalism in Scripture because of the representation of head coverings (as Paul explained). It would not have been modest for a woman not to cover her head (it would be elevating oneself, like wearing expensive clothes or jewlery).

I do not believe it legalistic, for example, if you corrected a man for wearing an expensive suit, or a woman for fancy hairstyles, expensive jewlery, etc., because that is ignoring modesty.

My concern is more with people who would put on airs, dress in a way they would not otherwise dress, "dress to impress", etc. But mostly my concern with that is if it isolates people who do not have the means to meet a specific standard.

And it goes both ways. If somebody "dressed down" specifically for church (we should always be modest) that would be questionable.

I have been scolded for allowing my wife to dress our children so nicely for church. Ironically, we don’t spend money on clothes all the clothes being complained about were given to us. We also were not the best dressed in the church either. (Not that we were having contests) For someone to walk around the church and tell someone that their clothes are not expensive enough or are too expensive is not something that you can accurately judge unless we start wearing receipts. That would be ridiculous. It is equally wrong, in my opinion, assume that if someone is wearing something that you wouldn’t, that they are putting on airs. It might be what God has provided for them in the form of hand me downs. I’ve also been called worldly because I had a shiny tie. I didn’t know it was shiny until it was pointed out. I thought they were joking.
At some point, airs are subjective. If you are offended by someone’s airs, you should talk to them and learn about them before you get upset with them.

 

[OLD SARGE]

All groups have their nutcases. Not all IFBs are the same. Some get away from the schools and change. Some get worse and some get better. My grandson is the Youth Pastor of a IFB Church in Arlington, TX. Two churches actually merged. The pastor and my grandson have beards and they mix the hymns with selected contemporary songs.

 

[Ben1445]

All groups have their nutcases. Not all IFBs are the same. Some get away from the schools and change. Some get worse and some get better. My grandson is the Youth Pastor of a IFB Church in Arlington, TX. Two churches actually merged. The pastor and my grandson have beards and they mix the hymns with selected contemporary songs.

If having beards or not is part of the discussion (because I have never run into that as an issue in all my IFB life) that is a glaring point that there are strange fringes.
Jesus had a beard. If it had anything to do with facial hair, we would be requiring beards. But being clean shaven doesn’t make you fundamental either.

 

[John of Japan]

How would you describe the doctrine of personal separation? Avoid the World system? Avoid sinful environments?

Personal separation is for the purpose of keeping me from sin. Therefore, for example, modesty (on men and women) keeps from lust. Not watching movies (c. f. John R. Rice and others writing against them back in the 1940s-1950s is to avoid being influenced by copious alcohol use, existentialism, and other dangers.

Personal separation is not to make me righteous (true legalism) or to impress others or to make God rejoice.

 

[John of Japan]

I don't know if they were legalists or not, but not for head coverings.

It was not legalism in Scripture because of the representation of head coverings (as Paul explained). It would not have been modest for a woman not to cover her head (it would be elevating oneself, like wearing expensive clothes or jewlery).
of tc., because that is ignoring modesty.

My concern is more with people who would put on airs, dress in a way they would not otherwise dress, "dress to impress", etc. But mostly my concern with that is if it isolates people who do not have the means to meet a specific standard.

And it goes both ways. If somebody "dressed down" specifically for church (we should always be modest) that would be questionable.

You don't have to use the non-theological charge of "legalism" to help people in these areas. There are Scriptures.

Here's the thing. The incorrect cultural, non-theological charge of "legalism" seems to be one way. The opposite of true theological legalism is antinomianism, the belief that Christians are free to do anything they want and none of it is sin. Have I ever accused any non-fundamentalist here on the BB of antinomianism? No I have not, nor has anyone here. There is no need to use such charges to have a helpful discussion. Scripture is sufficient.

 

[John of Japan]

I have a good friend from college (still a friend and we keep in contact) who used to rail against fundamentalist "legalism." And he never let me try to counter or explain. His boy turned into a drug addict, and once even punched his mother in the face. Maybe a little more "legalism"--i. e., strict standards in the home (with love)--would have helped that family.