Fundamentalism, How to describe it

[JonC]

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.

I don't think that would be legalism.

What I call "legalism" (the "popular definition") is not following rules or establishing rules for children.

As Christians we judge the actions of one another, and we hold one another accountable.

The problem with the Pharisees enforcing the Law was not that they enforced the Law but that they created laws to keep from breaking the Law and enforced a standard ignoring the intent of the Law. They were superficial.


You said that wearing a suit and tie is "evangelism" while not doing so is an invention of "new evangelism".

Why a suit and tie?

 

[John of Japan]

I don't think that would be legalism.

What I call "legalism" (the "popular definition") is not following rules or establishing rules for children.

As Christians we judge the actions of one another, and we hold one another accountable.

The problem with the Pharisees enforcing the Law was not that they enforced the Law but that they created laws to keep from breaking the Law and enforced a standard ignoring the intent of the Law. They were superficial.

Oh, yes, that's a compliment, comparing the fundamentalist to a Pharisee.

You said that wearing a suit and tie is "evangelism" while not doing so is an invention of "new evangelism".

Why a suit and tie?

No, I never said this and don't agree with it. I don't know where you got that, but it was not from me. And I never talked about "new evangelism," but "New Evangelicalism"--a huge difference. You don't know 20th century evangelical history if you don't know that terminology.

Edited in: In fact, it is impossible to understand modern evangelicalism without knowing the 20th century history. "Evangelical" means any group that knows and preaches the biblical Gospel. "Fundamentalism" is a branch of that movement.

 

[JonC]

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.

Again, you are the only one talking about "theological legalism". That is not what people charge IFB with. They use the "popular definition" (the definition you said I was using). I do understand why you view legalism as offensive. But the reason is you are defining the word different from what non-IFB are saying. Nobody, that I know of, is calling IFB churches theologically legalistic. People are using the "popular definition", the dictionary definition. And, for my part, I said this does not apply to IFB churches as a whole but only my experience with IFB churches.

Do you believe it is holding a standard with love to yell at a 7 year old girl that she is going to Hell for wearing shorts? I say that is legalism.


This is some of what I believe about how we are to dress:

1 Timothy 2:9-10 - likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

1 Peter 3:3-4 - Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious


If Scripture commanded men to wear a suit and tie (or attire the world associates with success) then it would be different.

Do I care what people wear to worship God or to listen to the gosoel message? No.

We have some in suits. Thats great. Some are in jeans snd a shirt, some shorts. Thats great.
I am more concerned that they come.

Now I'm attending a different type of church (one in the community, meeting at a school to reach out to the lost and the unchurched Christians). So this is less an issue as most have no suit to wear.

 

[JonC]

Oh, yes, that's a compliment, comparing the fundamentalist to a Pharisee.

No, I never said this and don't agree with it. I don't know where you got that, but it was not from me. And I never talked about "new evangelism," but "New Evangelicalism"--a huge difference. You don't know 20th century evangelical history if you don't know that terminology.

No, that is not the complaint. Nobody is comparing fundamentalists to Pharisees, but the practice of making rules to make sure other rules are kept to the Pharisees making laws to make sure other laws are kept.

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.

Sorry....auto correct on my phone. "New Evangelicals".

But yes, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable for a man to go to church without wearing a suit and tie.


I explained that my view was formed by a limited experience that failed to represent the entire IFB denomination. And I gave you examples of what I was talking about.

1. My 1st example with an IFB churches (the one that colored my opinion):

A congregation leaving church sees a little girl playing in her yard. The girl is wearing shorts, so as they leave to get in their car they take turns yelling at her that she is going to Hell for wearing shorts.

How is that not legalism?

2. A second example that I have seen a few times:

An IFB pastor explained to a member (who was my friend) that peoole who use a Bible other than the KJV are going to Hell because they are unknowingly worshipping Satan.

Ok...this could go towards legalism, but probably not. Just giving you a glimpse of how my opinion formed.

 

[John of Japan]

Again, you are the only one talking about "theological legalism". That is not what people charge IFB with. They use the "popular definition" (the definition you said I was using). I do understand why you view legalism as offensive. But the reason is you are defining the word different from what non-IFB are saying. Nobody, that I know of, is calling IFB churches theologically legalistic. People are using the "popular definition", the dictionary definition. And, for my part, I said this does not apply to IFB churches as a whole but only my experience with IFB churches.

Do you believe it is holding a standard with love to yell at a 7 year old girl that she is going to Hell for wearing shorts? I say that is legalism.


This is some of what I believe about how we are to dress:

1 Timothy 2:9-10 - likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

1 Peter 3:3-4 - Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious


If Scripture commanded men to wear a suit and tie (or attire the world associates with success) then it would be different.

Do I care what people wear to worship God or to listen to the gosoel message? No.

We have some in suits. Thats great. Some are in jeans snd a shirt, some shorts. Thats great.
I am more concerned that they come.

Now I'm attending a different type of church (one in the community, meeting at a school to reach out to the lost and the unchurched Christians). So this is less an issue as most have no suit to wear.

Sorry, I'm in a session and can't answer this right now. Hopefully later. But I will just say that the "cultural" use of "legalism" is an illegitimate and pejorative usage. In other words, it is used in popular culture to accuse and confuse, not to dialogue.

 

[OLD SARGE]

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.

The pastor that ordained me would often counter challenges with the "don't go up against God's man" or "Touch not my anointed." He would also say, "People who believe that get divorced." Sadly, his wife had an affair and he ended up divorced. I have prayed they would reconcile, but it would be a miracle since like many IFBs that adultery is an automatic divorce ticket. Marriages have overcome such things. I often wonder how many people are living in adultery because wanted to restore the marriage and some pastors and all of the friends of the betrayed misused a text making divorce mandatory and it was OK to remarry.

 

[JonC]

Sorry, I'm in a session and can't answer this right now. Hopefully later. But I will just say that the "cultural" use of "legalism" is an illegitimate and pejorative usage. In other words, it is used in popular culture to accuse and confuse, not to dialogue.

OK.

When you get a chance I have another question.

What is the appropriate term for churches applying onto people standards of dress that they do not hold, apart from biblical standards stated in Scripture (head coverings, women not to wear expensive clothes or jewlery)?


Another aspect we have not discussed is age demographics with changes in culture.

At one time it was common for men to wear a suit and tie when in public. At one time it was common dress for professionals. But now is not that time. I work in the nuclear field. At one time a nuclear engineer and nuclear physicist would be expected to wear at least a coat and tie. Now the engineers wear jeans and a polo while the physicist wears kakis and a polo.

What I mean is one person's sence of dressing appropriately may be another's puffery. Wearing a suit may be one person's idea of appropriate dress while another may feel he is putting on airs. We need to worship in spirit and in truth. What may facilitate worship for one may hinder worship for another.

A suit and tie may not have the same association for every generation.



Last question (for now....I'm always full of questions):

You see two women at church.
One is wearing a nice dress, a gold necklace and pearl earrings.
The other is wearing blue jeans and a plain t-shirt.

Which is dressed modestly per the Biblical standard of modesty?
Which is dressed appropriately per the "Evangelical" standard you mentioned?

 

[Jerome]

Last question (for now....I'm always full of questions):

You see two women at church.
One is wearing a nice dress, a gold necklace and pearl earrings.
The other is wearing blue jeans and a plain t-shirt.

Doesn't blue jeans gal have jewelry on too? A nose ring? Ear gauges?

 

[JonC]

Doesn't blue jeans gal have jewelry on too? A nose ring? Ear gauges?

Lol....no.....just blue jeans and a Christian t-shirt (from a local church event at the lake).

Most of the college age guys I know like to wear Christian t-shirts and pray for "encounters" (chances to share the gospel). That is how several ended up knowing Christ, so I get their thinking.

That said, nose rings and guages are gross, but cheap. I doubt anybody thinks them extravagant.

I have been amazed at how God is working with a younger generation while at the same sad that so many "older generation" churches are dying. I try to concentrate on what God is doing. That is where I want to be (even if I don't know the songs).

It would be nice if they stopped trying to talk me into riding the electric skateboard, though. I'm not going to do it. Ain't enough padding in the world.

 

[Aaron]

Who told Adam and Eve that they were naked?

 

[JonC]

Who told Adam and Eve that they were naked?

Nobody.

 

[John of Japan]

The pastor that ordained me would often counter challenges with the "don't go up against God's man" or "Touch not my anointed." He would also say, "People who believe that get divorced." Sadly, his wife had an affair and he ended up divorced. I have prayed they would reconcile, but it would be a miracle since like many IFBs that adultery is an automatic divorce ticket. Marriages have overcome such things. I often wonder how many people are living in adultery because wanted to restore the marriage and some pastors and all of the friends of the betrayed misused a text making divorce mandatory and it was OK to remarry.

That's a lot of sadness.

 

[John of Japan]

Again, you are the only one talking about "theological legalism". That is not what people charge IFB with. They use the "popular definition" (the definition you said I was using). I do understand why you view legalism as offensive. But the reason is you are defining the word different from what non-IFB are saying. Nobody, that I know of, is calling IFB churches theologically legalistic. People are using the "popular definition", the dictionary definition. And, for my part, I said this does not apply to IFB churches as a whole but only my experience with IFB churches.

Okay. But not my experience, and certainly not the church I am in now.

Do you believe it is holding a standard with love to yell at a 7 year old girl that she is going to Hell for wearing shorts? I say that is legalism.

Absolutely wrong. This incident fits the theological definition of legalism, because it assigns a moral equivalent to clothing. That is exactly theological legalism. So I'm thinking you still don't understand what I've been trying to say.

Furthermore, I was never in a fundamental al church that evangelizes that way. My grandfather, a leader among fundamentalists for 50 years, always signed his Bible with Psalm 126:5-6, "5 They that sow in tears shall reap in joy. 6 He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed, shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him." We believe in compassion in soul winning, not judgment. Furthermore, he preached that if a man can preach on Hell without weeping, he is backslidden.

This is some of what I believe about how we are to dress:

1 Timothy 2:9-10 - likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works.

1 Peter 3:3-4 - Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God's sight is very precious


If Scripture commanded men to wear a suit and tie (or attire the world associates with success) then it would be different.

Do I care what people wear to worship God or to listen to the gosoel message? No.

We have some in suits. Thats great. Some are in jeans snd a shirt, some shorts. Thats great.
I am more concerned that they come.

Now I'm attending a different type of church (one in the community, meeting at a school to reach out to the lost and the unchurched Christians). So this is less an issue as most have no suit to wear.

I haven't said a thing about clothing, so I'm surprised you are bringing it up. Where I minister, we never rebuke folks for their clothing, and the pastor never preaches on it. But folks gradually figure out that we believe in respecting God's house with what we wear, without ever being told. But some continue to come in their own idea of what to wear in church, and that's fine too.

 

[John of Japan]

OK.

When you get a chance I have another question.

What is the appropriate term for churches applying onto people standards of dress that they do not hold, apart from biblical standards stated in Scripture (head coverings, women not to wear expensive clothes or jewlery)?


Another aspect we have not discussed is age demographics with changes in culture.

At one time it was common for men to wear a suit and tie when in public. At one time it was common dress for professionals. But now is not that time. I work in the nuclear field. At one time a nuclear engineer and nuclear physicist would be expected to wear at least a coat and tie. Now the engineers wear jeans and a polo while the physicist wears kakis and a polo.

What I mean is one person's sence of dressing appropriately may be another's puffery. Wearing a suit may be one person's idea of appropriate dress while another may feel he is putting on airs. We need to worship in spirit and in truth. What may facilitate worship for one may hinder worship for another.

A suit and tie may not have the same association for every generation.



Last question (for now....I'm always full of questions):

You see two women at church.
One is wearing a nice dress, a gold necklace and pearl earrings.
The other is wearing blue jeans and a plain t-shirt.

Which is dressed modestly per the Biblical standard of modesty?
Which is dressed appropriately per the "Evangelical" standard you mentioned?

Most of this I answered in the above post. As for the two women, this exactly fits what James said in James 2:1-3. So what do you expect me to say. Did you think, perhaps, that I didn't know that passage?

And stop putting words into my mouth. I never said a word about clothing until you did. I never said a thing about "evangelical clothing," so I don't know where you got that. It's not important to me.

 

[JonC]

Okay. But not my experience, and certainly not the church I am in now.

Absolutely wrong. This incident fits the theological definition of legalism, because it assigns a moral equivalent to clothing. That is exactly theological legalism. So I'm thinking you still don't understand what I've been trying to say.

No, I perfectly understand theological legalism and the "dictionary" definition.

Theological legalism is salvation or justification by works (do this and that and you are saved, righteous, or justified).

Like I stated several times, those equating fundamentalism with legalism are using the "popular definition".

I agree that in my experience what I have observed of fundamentalism in most of the IFB churches I have encountered is theogical legalism, but that was not my point. Anyway, glad we agree

And stop putting words into my mouth. I never said a word about clothing until you did. I never said a thing about "evangelical clothing," so I don't know where you got that. It's not important to meme.

Of course you didn't. You were responding to my post about what I called legalism and you called theological legalism.

I am not sure what you mean by "evangelical clothing". I simply said that you indicated that wearing a suit and tie is "what evangelicalism used to be" and the belief that a man can attend church without wearing a suit and tie is "an invention of the New Evangelicals".

If you mean my using a different word, I already told you my phone filled that in (auto correct, using my phone and not a computer).

But here is where I got that idea (correct me if I misunderstood your post.

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.

I haven't said a thing about clothing, so I'm surprised you are bringing it up.

You shouldn't have been surprised as I explained that (what you affirmed as theological legalism but I simply left as legalism, of which theological legalism is a type) was what I experienced and formed my opinion, an opinion I freely admit is not true of the entire denomination.

Look, @John of Japan , I do not question your expetiences. If you believe I am lying about what I have experienced then just say so. You won't hurt my feelings, and I prefer plain speech. But don't pretend I was speaking of you, your church, or your experience.

I was answering the OP and explaining why I have that opinion of IFB churches while actively knowing that opinion is not accurate of the whole denomination.

 

[Aaron]

Nobody.

They knew by nature. Some things not even God has to say directly. Once they're eyes were opened, they were ashamed and covered themselves. Appeals to 'culture' and to the lack of direct verbatims and shifting the problem to those who call out the indecency is only a pretense of spirituality.

Nobody dresses up for God when they go to church. All things are naked and opened unto His eyes. And no one dresses for himself. In church and in public, we dress for others. In some respects, even for the angels among us.